Assassination Politics 1-3
jimbell
Assassination Politics
by Jim Bell.
Part 1
I've been following the concepts of digital cash and encryption since
I read the article in the August 1992 issue of Scientific American on
"encrypted signatures." While I've only followed the Digitaliberty area
for a few weeks, I can already see a number of points that do (and
should!) strongly concern the average savvy individual:
1. How can we translate the freedom afforded by the Internet to
ordinary life?
2. How can we keep the government from banning encryption, digital
cash, and other systems that will improve our freedom?
A few months ago, I had a truly and quite literally "revolutionary"
idea, and I jokingly called it "Assassination Politics": I speculated on
the question of whether an organization could be set up to _legally_
announce that it would be awarding a cash prize to somebody who
correctly "predicted" the death of one of a list of violators of
rights, usually either government employees, officeholders, or
appointees. It could ask for anonymous contributions from the public,
and individuals would be able send those contributions using digital
cash.
I also speculated that using modern methods of public-key encryption and
anonymous "digital cash," it would be possible to make such awards in
such a way so that nobody knows who is getting awarded the money, only
that the award is being given. Even the organization itself would have
no information that could help the authorities find the person
responsible for the prediction, let alone the one who caused the death.
It was not my intention to provide such a "tough nut to crack" by
arguing the general case, claiming that a person who hires a hit man is
not guilty of murder under libertarian principles. Obviously, the
problem with the general case is that the victim may be totally innocent
under libertarian principles, which would make the killing a crime,
leading to the question of whether the person offering the money was
himself guilty.
On the contrary; my speculation assumed that the "victim" is a
government employee, presumably one who is not merely taking a paycheck
of stolen tax dollars, but also is guilty of extra violations of rights
beyond this. (Government agents responsible for the Ruby Ridge incident
and Waco come to mind.) In receiving such money and in his various
acts, he violates the "Non-aggression Principle" (NAP) and thus,
presumably, any acts against him are not the initiation of force under
libertarian principles.
The organization set up to manage such a system could, presumably, make
up a list of people who had seriously violated the NAP, but who would
not see justice in our courts due to the fact that their actions were
done at the behest of the government. Associated with each name would
be a dollar figure, the total amount of money the organization has
received as a contribution, which is the amount they would give for
correctly "predicting" the person's death, presumably naming the exact
date. "Guessers" would formulate their "guess" into a file, encrypt it
with the organization's public key, then transmit it to the organization,
possibly using methods as untraceable as putting a floppy disk in an
envelope and tossing it into a mailbox, but more likely either a cascade
of encrypted anonymous remailers, or possibly public-access Internet
locations, such as terminals at a local library, etc.
In order to prevent such a system from becoming simply a random unpaid
lottery, in which people can randomly guess a name and date (hoping that
lightning would strike, as it occasionally does), it would be necessary
to deter such random guessing by requiring the "guessers" to include
with their "guess" encrypted and untraceable "digital cash," in an
amount sufficiently high to make random guessing impractical.
For example, if the target was, say, 50 years old and had a life
expectancy of 30 years, or about 10,000 days, the amount of money
required to register a guess must be at least 1/10,000th of the amount
of the award. In practice, the amount required should be far higher,
perhaps as much as 1/1000 of the amount, since you can assume that
anybody making a guess would feel sufficiently confident of that guess
to risk 1/1000th of his potential reward.
The digital cash would be placed inside the outer "encryption envelope,"
and could be decrypted using the organization's public key. The
prediction itself (including name and date) would be itself in another
encryption envelope inside the first one, but it would be encrypted
using a key that is only known to the predictor himself. In this way,
the organization could decrypt the outer envelope and find the digital
cash, but they would have no idea what is being predicted in the
innermost envelope, either the name or the date.
If, later, the "prediction" came true, the predictor would presumably
send yet another encrypted "envelope" to the organization, containing
the decryption key for the previous "prediction" envelope, plus a public
key (despite its name, to be used only once!) to be used for encryption
of digital cash used as payment for the award. The organization would
apply the decryption key to the prediction envelope, discover that it
works, then notice that the prediction included was fulfilled on the
date stated. The predictor would be, therefore, entitled to the award.
Nevertheless, even then nobody would actually know WHO he is!
It doesn't even know if the predictor had anything to do with the
outcome of the prediction. If it received these files in the mail, in
physical envelopes which had no return address, it would have burned the
envelopes before it studied their contents. The result is that even the
active cooperation of the organization could not possibly help anyone,
including the police, to locate the predictor.
Also included within this "prediction-fulfilled" encryption envelope
would be unsigned (not-yet-valid) "digital cash," which would then be
blindly signed by the organization's bank and subsequently encrypted
using the public key included. (The public key could also be publicized,
to allow members of the public to securely send their comments and,
possibly, further grateful remuneration to the predictor, securely.)
The resulting encrypted file could be published openly on the Internet,
and it could then be decrypted by only one entity: The person who had
made that original, accurate prediction. The result is that the
recipient would be absolutely untraceable.
The digital cash is then processed by the recipient by "unblinding" it,
a principle which is explained in far greater detail by the article in
the August 1992 issue of Scientific American. The resulting digital
cash is absolutely untraceable to its source.
This overall system achieves a number of goals. First, it totally hides
the identity of the predictor to the organization, which makes it
unnecessary for any potential predictor to "trust" them to not reveal
his name or location. Second, it allows the predictor to make his
prediction without revealing the actual contents of that prediction
until later, when he chooses to, assuring him that his "target" cannot
possibly get early warning of his intent (and "failed" predictions
need never be revealed). In fact, he needs never reveal his prediction
unless he wants the award. Third, it allows the predictor to anonymously
grant his award to anyone else he chooses, since he may give this
digital cash to anyone without fear that it will be traced.
For the organization, this system also provides a number of advantages.
By hiding the identity of the predictor from even it, the organization
cannot be forced to reveal it, in either civil or criminal court. This
should also shield the organization from liability, since it will not
know the contents of any "prediction" until after it comes true. (Even
so, the organization would be deliberately kept "poor" so that it would
be judgment-proof.) Since presumably most of the laws the organization
might be accused of violating would require that the violator have
specific or prior knowledge, keeping itself ignorant of as many facts as
possible, for as long as possible, would presumably make it very
difficult to prosecute.
[end part 1]
Part 2
"At the Village Pizza shop, as they were sitting down to consume a
pepperoni, Dorothy asked Jim, 'So what other inventions are you working
on?" Jim replied, 'I've got a new idea, but it's really revolutionary.
Literally REVOLUTIONARY.' 'Okay, Jim, which government are you
planning to overthrow?,' she asked, playing along.
'All of them,' answered Jim."
Political Implications
Imagine for a moment that as ordinary citizens were watching the
evening news, they see an act by a government employee or officeholder
that they feel violates their rights, abuses the public's trust, or
misuses the powers that they feel should be limited. A person whose
actions are so abusive or improper that the citizenry shouldn't have to
tolerate it.
What if they could go to their computers, type in the miscreant's name,
and select a dollar amount: The amount they, themselves, would be
willing to pay to anyone who "predicts" that officeholder's death. That
donation would be sent, encrypted and anonymously, to a central
registry organization, and be totaled, with the total amount available
within seconds to any interested individual. If only 0.1% of the
population, or one person in a thousand, was willing to pay $1 to see
some government slimeball dead, that would be, in effect, a $250,000
bounty on his head.
Further, imagine that anyone considering collecting that bounty could do
so with the mathematical certainty that he could not be identified,
and could collect the reward without meeting, or even talking to,
anybody who could later identify him. Perfect anonymity, perfect
secrecy, and perfect security. And that, combined with the ease and
security with which these contributions could be collected, would make
being an abusive government employee an extremely risky proposition.
Chances are good that nobody above the level of county commissioner
would even risk staying in office.
Just how would this change politics in America? It would take far less
time to answer, "What would remain the same?" No longer would we be
electing people who will turn around and tax us to death, regulate us
to death, or for that matter sent hired thugs to kill us when we oppose
their wishes.
No military?
One of the attractive potential implications of such a system would be
that we might not even need a military to protect the country. Any
threatening or abusive foreign leader would be subject to the same
contribution/assassination/reward system, and it would operate just as
effectively over borders as it does domestically.
This country has learned, in numerous examples subsequent to many wars,
that once the political disputes between leaders has ceased, we
(ordinary citizens) are able to get along pretty well with the citizens
of other countries. Classic examples are post-WWII Germany, Japan, and
Italy, and post-Soviet Russia, the Eastern bloc, Albania, and many
others.
Contrary examples are those in which the political dispute remains, such
as North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Cuba, Red China, and a few others. In
all of these examples, the opposing leadership was NOT defeated, either
in war or in an internal power struggle. Clearly, it is not the PEOPLE
who maintain the dispute, but the leadership.
Consider how history might have changed if we'd been able to "bump off"
Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh,
Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Moammar Khadafi, and various others,
along with all of their replacements if necessary, all for a measly few
million dollars, rather than the billions of dollars and millions of
lives that subsequent wars cost.
But that raises an interesting question, with an even more interesting
answer. "If all this is so easy, why hasn't this been done before?" I
mean, wars are destructive, costly, and dangerous, so why hasn't some
smart politician figured out that instead of fighting the entire
country, we could just 'zero' the few bad guys on the top?
The answer is quite revealing, and strikingly "logical": If we can kill
THEIR leaders, they can kill OUR leaders too. That would avoid the
war, but the leadership on both sides would be dead, and guess who is
making the decisions about what to do? That's right, the LEADERS!
And the leaders (both theirs and ours!) would rather see 30,000,000
ordinary people die in WWII than lose their own lives, if they can get
away with it. Same in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, and numerous
other disputes around the globe. You can see that as long as we
continue to allow leaders, both "ours" and "theirs," to decide who
should die, they will ALWAYS choose the ordinary people of each
country.
One reason the leaders have been able to avoid this solution is simple:
While it's comparatively easy to "get away with murder," it's a lot
harder to reward the person who does it, and that person is definitely
taking a serious risk. (Most murders are solved based on some prior
relationship between the murder and victim, or observations of witnesses
who know either the murderer or the victim.)
Historically, it has been essentially impossible to adequately motivate
an assassin, ensuring his safety and anonymity as well, if only because
it has been impossible to PAY him in a form that nobody can trace, and
to ensure the silence of all potential witnesses. Even if a person was
willing to die in the act, he would want to know that the people he
chooses would get the reward, but if they themselves were identified
they'd be targets of revenge.
All that's changed with the advent of public-key encryption and digital
cash. Now, it should be possible to announce a standing offer to all
comers that a large sum of digital cash will be sent to him in an
untraceable fashion should he meet certain "conditions," conditions
which don't even have to include proving (or, for that matter, even
claiming) that he was somehow responsible for a death.
I believe that such a system has tremendous implications for the future
of freedom. Libertarians in particular (and I'm a libertarian) should
pay particular attention to the fact that this system "encourages" if
not an anarchist outcome, at least a minarchist (minimal government)
system, because no large governmental structure could survive in
its current form.
In fact, I would argue that this system would solve a potential
problem, occasionally postulated, with the adoption of libertarianism in
one country, surrounded by non-libertarian states. It could have
reasonably been suspected that in a gradual shift to a libertarian
political and economic system, remnants of a non-libertarian system such
as a military would have to survive, to protect society against the
threats represented by foreign states. While certainly plausible, it
would have been hard for an average naive person to imagine how the
country would maintain a $250 billion military budget, based on
voluntary contributions.
The easy answer, of course, is that military budgets of that size would
simply not happen in a libertarian society. More problematic is the
question of how a country would defend itself, if it had to raise its
defenses by voluntary contribution. An equally simplistic answer is
that this country could probably be defended just fine on a budget 1/2
to 1/3 of the current budget. True, but that misses the point.
The real answer is even simpler. Large armies are only necessary to
fight the other large armies organized by the leadership of other,
non-libertarian states, presumably against the will of their citizenry.
Once the problem posed by _their_ leadership is solved (as well as ours;
either by their own citizenry by similar anonymous contributions, or by
ours), there will be no large armies to oppose.
[end of part 2]
Part 3
In the 1960's movie, "The Thomas Crown Affair," actor Steve McQueen
plays a bored multi-millionaire who fights tedium by arranging
well-planned high-yield bank robberies. He hires each of the robbers
separately and anonymously, so that they can neither identify him nor
each other. They arrive at the bank on schedule, separately but
simultaneously, complete the robbery, then separate forever. He pays
each robber out of his own funds, so that the money cannot be traced,
and he keeps the proceeds of each robbery.
In my recent essay generally titled "Digitaliberty," or earlier
"Assassination politics," I hypothesized that it should be possible to
LEGALLY set up an organization which collects perfectly anonymous
donations sent by members of the public, donations which instruct the
organization to pay the amount to any person who correctly guesses the
date of death of some named person, for example some un-favorite
government employee or officeholder. The organization would total
the amounts of the donations for each different named person, and
publish that list (presumably on the Internet) on a daily or perhaps
even an hourly basis, telling the public exactly how much a person would
get for "predicting" the death of that particular target.
Moreover, that organization would accept perfectly anonymous,
untraceable, encrypted "predictions" by various means, such as the
Internet (probably through chains of encrypted anonymous remailers), U.S.
mail, courier, or any number of other means. Those predictions would
contain two parts: A small amount of untraceable "digital cash," inside
the outer "digital envelope," to ensure that the "predictor" can't
economically just randomly choose dates and names, and an inner
encrypted data packet which is encrypted so that even the organization
itself cannot decrypt it. That data packet would contain the name of
the person whose death is predicted, and the date it is to happen.
This encrypted packet could also be published, still encrypted, on the
Internet, so as to be able to prove to the world, later, that SOMEBODY
made that prediction before it happened, and was willing to "put money
on it" by including it outside the inner encrypted "envelope." The
"predictor" would always lose the outer digital cash; he would only earn
the reward if his (still-secret) prediction later became true. If,
later on, that prediction came true, the "lucky" predictor would
transmit the decrypt key to the organization, untraceably, which would
apply it to the encrypted packet, and discover that it works, and read
the prediction made hours, days, weeks, or even months earlier. Only
then would the organization, or for that matter anyone else except the
predictor, know the person or the date named.
Also included in that inner encrypted digital "envelope" would be a
public key, generated by the predictor for only this particular purpose:
It would not be his "normal" public key, obviously, because _that_
public key would be traceable to him. Also present in this packet
would be "blinded" (not yet certified as being good) "digital cash"
codes, codes that would be presented to a certifying bank for their
digital "stamp of approval," making them worth the dollars that the
predictor has earned. (This presentation could be done indirectly, by an
intermediary, to prevent a bank from being able to refuse to deal with
the organization.)
Those "digital cash" codes will then be encrypted using the public key
included with the original prediction, and published in a number of
locations, perhaps on the Internet in a number of areas, and available
by FTP to anyone who's interested. (It is assumed that this data will
somehow get to the original predictor. Since it will get to "everyone"
on the Internet, it will presumably be impossible to know where the
predictor is.) Note, however, that only the person who sent the
prediction (or somebody he's given the secret key to in the interim) can
decrypt that message, and in any case only he, the person who prepared
the digital cash blanks, can fully "unblind" the digital cash to make it
spendable, yet absolutely untraceable. (For a much more complete
explanation of how so-called "digital cash" works, I refer you to the
August 1992 issue of Scientific American.)
This process sounds intricate, but it (and even some more detail I
haven't described above) is all necessary to:
1. Keep the donors, as well as the predictors, absolutely anonymous,
not only to the public and each other, but also to the organization
itself, either before or after the prediction comes true.
2. Ensure that neither the organization, nor the donors, nor the
public, is aware of the contents of the "prediction" unless and until
it later becomes true. (This ensures that none of the other
participants can be "guilty" of knowing this, before it happens.)
3. Prove to the donors (including potential future predictors), the
organization, and the public that indeed, somebody predicted a
particular death on a particular date, before it actually happened.
4. Prove to the donors and the public (including potential future
predictors) that the amount of money promised was actually paid to
whoever made the prediction that later came true. This is important,
obviously, because you don't want any potential predictor to doubt
whether he'll get the money if he makes a successful prediction, and you
don't want any potential donor to doubt that his money is actually going
to go to a successful predictor.
5. Prevent the organization and the donors and the public from knowing,
for sure, whether the predictor actually had anything to do with the
death predicted. This is true even if (hypothetically) somebody is
later caught and convicted of a murder, which was the subject of a
successful "prediction": Even after identifying the murderer through
other means, it will be impossible for anyone to know if the murderer
and the predictor were the same person.
6. Allow the predictor, if he so chooses, to "gift" the reward
(possibly quite anonymously) to any other person, one perhaps totally
unaware of the source of the money, without anyone else knowing of this.
Even the named "target" (the "victim") is also assured of something: He
is assured that literally anyone in the world, from his worst enemy to
his best "friend," could collect the reward, absolutely anonymously,
should they "predict" his death correctly. At that point, he will have no
friends.
This may represent the ultimate in compartmentalization of information:
Nobody knows more than he needs to, to play his part in the whole
arrangement. Nobody can turn anyone else in, or make a mistake that
identifies the other participants. Yet everyone can verify that the
"game" is played "fairly": The predictor gets his money, as the donors
desire. Potential future predictors are satisfied (in a mathematically
provable fashion) that all previous successful predictors were paid
their full rewards, in a manner that can't possibly be traced. The
members of the public are assured that, if they choose to make a
donation, it will be used as promised.
This leads me to a bold assertion: I claim that, aside from the
practical difficulty and perhaps, theoretical impossibility of
identifying either the donors or the predictor, it is very likely that
none of the participants, with the (understandable) hypothetical
exception of a "predictor" who happens to know that he is also a
murderer, could actually be considered "guilty" of any violation of
black-letter law. Furthermore, none of the participants, including the
central organization, is aware, either before or after the "prediction"
comes true, that any other participant was actually in violation of any
law, or for that matter would even know (except by watching the news)
that any crime had actually been committed.
After all, the donors are merely offering gifts to a person who makes a
successful prediction, not for any presumed responsibility in a killing,
and the payment would occur even if no crime occurred. The organization
is merely coordinating it all, but again isolating itself so that it
cannot know from whom the money comes, or to whom the money eventually
is given, or whether a crime was even committed. (Hypothetically, the
"predictor" could actually be the "victim," who decides to kill himself
and "predict" this, giving the proceeds of the reward to his chosen
beneficiary, perhaps a relative or friend. Ironically, this might be
the best revenge he can muster, "cheating the hangman," as it were.)
In fact, the organization could further shield itself by adopting a
stated policy that no convicted (or, for that matter, even SUSPECTED)
killers could receive the payment of a reward. However, since the
recipient of the reward is by definition unidentified and untraceable
even in theory, this would be a rather hollow assurance since it has no
way to prevent such a payment from being made to someone responsible.
[end of part 3]
Chance Harris
: parts 1-3 of 10
: Assassination Politics
: by Jim Bell.
: Part 1
: I've been following the concepts of digital cash and encryption since
: I read the article in the August 1992 issue of Scientific American on
: "encrypted signatures." While I've only followed the Digitaliberty area
: for a few weeks, I can already see a number of points that do (and
: should!) strongly concern the average savvy individual:
: 1. How can we translate the freedom afforded by the Internet to
: ordinary life?
: 2. How can we keep the government from banning encryption, digital
: cash, and other systems that will improve our freedom?
: A few months ago, I had a truly and quite literally "revolutionary"
: idea, and I jokingly called it "Assassination Politics": I speculated on
: the question of whether an organization could be set up to _legally_
: announce that it would be awarding a cash prize to somebody who
: correctly "predicted" the death of one of a list of violators of
: rights, usually either government employees, officeholders, or
: appointees. It could ask for anonymous contributions from the public,
: and individuals would be able send those contributions using digital
: cash.
Actually this is a very interesting post.
However, If I were on a Jury, and the person who was running this
"lottery", as you call it, were to be tried for murder, I don't
think I'd have a big problem voting for a guilty verdict. They
can say its just a "game" and they only intended for "predictions",
to come in. But if somebody is providing a framework for a
hit-man free market, I don't care what kind of word games you play,
thats murder to me. If they could convince me that they actually
did not intend for any one to get killed as the result of a "prediction"
(which I think would require more than just their word on it), then
in this potnential juror's opinion, its only manslaughter.
Ever see that movie "The Dead Pool" ?? (something like that),
with Clint Eastwood ?
------------------------------------------------
Politics is a conflict of interests masquerading
as a conflict of ideals.
- (poorly paraphrased?) Ambrose Bierce
------------------------------------------------
Chance Harris
cha...@coyote.sps.mot.com
#include<std_disclaimer.h>
Keith Blair
: and select a dollar amount: The amount they, themselves, would be
: willing to pay to anyone who "predicts" that officeholder's death. That
And what happens when the KKK (or any other assinine racist group) gets
into it and starts entering in all of the names of every Jewish person,
black person, asian person, etc that they don't particularly care for?
Then innocent people would be killed only because of their nationality.
You're assuming that America has mature enough people to only select
guilty people. You're wrong. Dead wrong.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Blair the...@netcom.com
http://www.gate.net/~thecrow/ the...@gate.net
PGP ID: 54B854A5 Fingerprint: 729F7679841ED86980AD2D73CCD94ADE
PGP Key: http://www.gate.net/~thecrow/pgp-nfo.htm
ShelDrake
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hey Kids, can you say Manifesto?
This guy seems to have a good plan, but it's (to say the very
least) sick. He seems to forget the fact that such an
organization as he describes would be advocating murder of men and
women who have families and friends. I think it would be more
comforting if this was posted about 19 days ago (4/1/96). But
still not all that much.
The author of this manifesto also loses sight of the fact that, in
order to assassinate a political official, it is necessary to
locate said official, most likely in a public place. Conspiracies
aside, it has been demonstrated that most would-be assassins do
tend to get caught.
It also should not be forgotten that a foreign government could
decide to overthrow our government by donating millions of dollars
for the first to correctly "predict" the death of the President.
There's nothing quite like convincing us to kill our own
government, is there?
Well, this warrants no further bitching on my part.
ShelDrake
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.7.1
iQB1AwUBMXg/rKZFXXgg/W8lAQEvOQL+JbaT4K04Jh4prVPBHwmZmools3Zkw7hJ
vrbqMOJwfXw+L+jXgqVLEY2t3BehuE9ZJOD16ZZVdj1HLrMcB+uoS9e7uXTPAf1M
ny12aEzv7U/tH+/jUJdC5UA7crLPyZwK
=WEbM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
jimbell
>jimbell (jim...@pacifier.com) wrote:
>: parts 1-3 of 10
>: Assassination Politics
>: by Jim Bell.
>: Part 1
>: I've been following the concepts of digital cash and encryption since
>: I read the article in the August 1992 issue of Scientific American on
>: "encrypted signatures." While I've only followed the Digitaliberty area
>: for a few weeks, I can already see a number of points that do (and
>: should!) strongly concern the average savvy individual:
>Actually this is a very interesting post.
>However, If I were on a Jury, and the person who was running this
>"lottery", as you call it, were to be tried for murder, I don't
>think I'd have a big problem voting for a guilty verdict. They
>can say its just a "game" and they only intended for "predictions",
>to come in. But if somebody is providing a framework for a
>hit-man free market, I don't care what kind of word games you play,
>thats murder to me. If they could convince me that they actually
>did not intend for any one to get killed as the result of a "prediction"
>(which I think would require more than just their word on it), then
>in this potnential juror's opinion, its only manslaughter.
My my, you certainly do love a rush to judgment, don't you?!? Let's start at
the beginning, shall we? The system I describe is carefully designed so that
nobody (with the exception of a hypothetical killer) knows if the system
actually had the result of inducing a killing. The people running the lottery
would only know that a prediction had been made, and later they'd learn that the
prediction was correct. They might hear, from the news, that the dead guy was
murdered, but they would have no way to know if the "predictor" and the "killer"
were the same person. No way would the people operating the system be guilty
of murder; they're not even aware a crime has been committed, even after the
fact. (until they hear about it independently.)
In order to get any sort of conviction, especially one for murder, it is
necessary that a number of facts be established "beyond a reasonable doubt."
You can't do that with this system. There's always plenty of doubt, and because
it's based on facts could be just as easily true as false, that doubt is by
definition "reasonable."
The fact that YOU are willing to throw away 220 years of constitutional
protections in order to vote for a guilty verdict on such flimsy evidence says
far more about YOU than the system I've described. I'd say that you have
already disqualified yourself from any such jury: You haven't even explained
what evidence, other than the knowledge that somebody's running one of these
systems, would be necessary to get you to vote "guilty."
BTW, you've also failed to explain how "authorities" are going to be able to
distinguish between a random killing and one which was motivated by collecting a
reward. The fact that a reward existed doesn't mean that the person doing the
killing was aware of it, or ever collected it. Each and every one of these
issues are more than enough to cause "reasonable doubt" in nearly any citizen.
One more thing for you to ponder. If I were just an ordinary citizen,
unaffiliated with either the organization, the predictor, the defendant, or
anyone else, and I discoved your identity as a juror on such a case that (if a
conviction occurred) would have to have been unanimous, I would consider that
your decision to convict was clearly an intentional miscarriage of justice. At
that point, I would.
1. Publicize your name to the world, anonymously, explaining what you did.
2. Put up a hefty donation naming you. I assume numerous other people would
be inclined to do the same.
The reason is simple. No matter what you think the operator of that system did
wrong, that does not justify judicial misbehavior, either from the judge,
prosecutor, OR the jury. Unless you had far more than the information you
mentioned above, if you vote for a murder conviction, YOU as juror are
misbehaving. Worse, you are making every other citizen of the world the victim
of your misbehavior, because you are deterring the operation of a system which
has the capability of doing much good.
Moreover, you would have to be aware of these facts before you made your
verdict, and remember that verdict has to be unanimous to convict. Chances are
that most jurors simply wouldn't have the guts to risk their own lives. No
conviction would occur. Chances are that you hadn't considered this.
>Ever see that movie "The Dead Pool" ?? (something like that),
>with Clint Eastwood ?
I don't think so...
Damir Smitlener
[...snip...not particularly revolutionary thought...]
> I also speculated that using modern methods of public-key encryption and
> anonymous "digital cash," it would be possible to make such awards in
> such a way so that nobody knows who is getting awarded the money, only
> that the award is being given. Even the organization itself would have
> no information that could help the authorities find the person
> responsible for the prediction, let alone the one who caused the death.
This isn't all that revolutionary; "blind" contracts (of various types)
have been around for a very long time. The wrinkle on yours is that
instead of using physical means to transfer the funds you are using
electronic means.
Regardless, the weak points are still the transfers. They know where the
money is being sent to (otherwise the participants can't submit
entries) and they know where the winning payout is going to (otherwise
you can't reward the winner.) Giving the authorities the source of the
"contract" and a list of people interested in that contract is giving
even those donut-eating fat-boys a bit much of a head-start. This is
also ignoring the issue of non-corruptible exchange of private keys.
Even if there really were truly anonymous remailers and such, it would
be a simple (and quiet) matter of a warrant to open up those anonymous
services, and if you don't think a judge would issue a warrant based on
your "lottery" you don't know much about the judicial system.
Since they know who you are (electronically, anyway) there are several
ways for them to make life very, very miserable for you. The simplest is
to freeze your account and not let you make any potential payout - which
could very well lead to your own life being put in serious jeapordy
(these are NOT nice people you're dealing with.) They could even do this
without your knowledge by taking every packet that comes out of your
site (they know where you money is, remember?) and simply making it
disappear. Technically, a rather trivial thing to do.
Then there is the small matter of noone being able to carry out the
actual execution; by announcing your little contest, you've alerted the
authorities and the target. It will be very difficult indeed to carry
out such an assassination and not get caught or killed. You'd better
hope it's the latter.
As far as your all-but-inevitable trial goes, I suspect most jurors
would find you guilty of soliciting a murder. The prosecution will say
that, bottom line, you are paying out money if someone is dead on a
certain date - and they will be right. You even make the entry price
sufficiently high to *discourage* guessing!
It's always possible that a defense attorney could get the jury so
wrapped up in the nuances of the definitions of solicitation and murder
and they lose sight of what's going on - but are you really willing to
bet your freedom on this? I know I'm not.
As long as monies change hands, you're vulnerable.
[...snip...]
--
Damir Smitlener
jimbell
>jimbell wrote:
>> I also speculated that using modern methods of public-key encryption and
>> anonymous "digital cash," it would be possible to make such awards in
>> such a way so that nobody knows who is getting awarded the money, only
>> that the award is being given. Even the organization itself would have
>> no information that could help the authorities find the person
>> responsible for the prediction, let alone the one who caused the death.
>This isn't all that revolutionary; "blind" contracts (of various types)
>have been around for a very long time. The wrinkle on yours is that
>instead of using physical means to transfer the funds you are using
>electronic means.
You forgot about the verification aspects. "Blind contracts" are not
necessarily verifiable, or verifiable to third parties, anonymously. The system
I describe will be.
>Regardless, the weak points are still the transfers. They know where the
>money is being sent to (otherwise the participants can't submit
>entries)
Not necessarily. An anonymous organization is possible. It would be easier if
it isn't anonymous, but I don't think it's necessary. See part 10.
> and they know where the winning payout is going to (otherwise
>you can't reward the winner.)
WRONGO! Read the essay again. You obviously missed parts 4-6.
>Giving the authorities the source of the
>"contract" and a list of people interested in that contract is giving
>even those donut-eating fat-boys a bit much of a head-start.
Not as easy as you'd think.
>This is
>also ignoring the issue of non-corruptible exchange of private keys.
Who said anything about private keys? Ever heard of public-key cryptography?
That's what this whole system is based on.
>Even if there really were truly anonymous remailers and such, it would
>be a simple (and quiet) matter of a warrant to open up those anonymous
>services, and if you don't think a judge would issue a warrant based on
>your "lottery" you don't know much about the judicial system.
A judge might issue a warrant, but anonymous remailers don't have to keep
records, and the best ones don't. You can't subpoena information that isn't
kept. And any judge thinking of going up against this system would have to have
a death-wish.
>Since they know who you are (electronically, anyway)
They WON'T know most people involved.
>there are several
>ways for them to make life very, very miserable for you.
They could do that already. That doesn't mean that they have a right to do so.
>The simplest is
>to freeze your account and not let you make any potential payout - which
>could very well lead to your own life being put in serious jeapordy
>(these are NOT nice people you're dealing with.)
I guess you've never heard of overseas bank accounts, huh?
>They could even do this
>without your knowledge by taking every packet that comes out of your
>site (they know where you money is, remember?) and simply making it
>disappear. Technically, a rather trivial thing to do.
And the people who try this can be targeted as well. See, the system is
self-protecting. Furthermore, anybody who thinks this system is useful and
beneficial to society will have a strong interest in seeing it continue, and
thus can be expected to help defend it against recalcitrant officials.
>Then there is the small matter of noone being able to carry out the
>actual execution; by announcing your little contest, you've alerted the
>authorities and the target. It will be very difficult indeed to carry
>out such an assassination and not get caught or killed. You'd better
>hope it's the latter.
Too bad you're more clueless than most. The mere fact that a person is listed,
along with a reward amount, says nothing about WHEN the prediction will come
true, or for that matter if. The prediction is kept encrypted, even to the
organization which receives it, so that the arrival of the decrypt key is
necessary to discover what it said. No information is provided other than
this.
Even if the named target decides to go underground, his life has already been
ruined, and this will deter others in similar positions.
>As far as your all-but-inevitable trial goes, I suspect most jurors
>would find you guilty of soliciting a murder.
Another guy claimed this, but he was unable to explain how this would be proven,
given the fact that the system carefully avoids documenting any such
relationship. Proving that a person was actually killed BECAUSE OF this system
would be difficult.
Ever heard of the term "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Unless you believe a jury
will ignore reasonable doubt, what makes you think that a crime could be proven
to this standard? And as I pointed out to that other guy, a jury who
misbehaves and ignores the issue of "reasonable doubt" can, themselves, be
targeted. This may not sound hospitable, but I would say that deliberately
convicting a person of a crime they are not guilty of is, itself, a crime.
Remember, the fact that a death occurred does not prove who did it, or that it
was the "fault" of the organization making the payment. Even that organization
will have no knowledge about whether the death was caused by the person
receiving the payment. It won't even care!
>The prosecution will say
>that, bottom line, you are paying out money if someone is dead on a
>certain date - and they will be right.
That does not make it a crime, however. The money will be paid even if the
death is ruled an accident, or suicide, or any other category.
>You even make the entry price sufficiently high to *discourage* guessing!
So, what's wrong with this? It's an important part of the whole arrangement.
>It's always possible that a defense attorney could get the jury so
>wrapped up in the nuances of the definitions of solicitation and murder
>and they lose sight of what's going on - but are you really willing to
>bet your freedom on this? I know I'm not.
"Nuances"? Like maybe, "reasonable doubt"? Surely you jest!
>As long as monies change hands, you're vulnerable.
"Vulnerable" doesn't mean LEGITIMATELY GUILTY. It just means that the people
who would want to harass such a system would be inclined to misbehave. I've
never denied this. However, that doesn't mean that they'll succeed...or
survive.
Jim Bell
jim...@pacifier.com
Damir Smitlener
[...snip...]
> >Regardless, the weak points are still the transfers. They know where the
> >money is being sent to (otherwise the participants can't submit
> >entries)
>
> Not necessarily. An anonymous organization is possible. It would be easier
> if it isn't anonymous, but I don't think it's necessary. See part 10.
No, complete anonymity is NOT possible, and it is necessary. Elaboration below.
> > and they know where the winning payout is going to (otherwise
> >you can't reward the winner.)
>
> WRONGO! Read the essay again. You obviously missed parts 4-6.
Part 4 concerns the legality, in part 5 you delve in "minarchism", and in part
6 you go into the control systems inherent in your system. None of these have
anything to do with maintaining your or your clients anonymity. Let me explain
in more detail why you can't maintain it.
In the example you, yourself, gave, the client either (a) mails you a disk, or
(b) sends electronic transmissions through anon remailers. Think about it - if
this client has an address that PHYSICALLY links you to a location (you're
going to have to pick up that disk or have it delivered) than the Donut Patrol
has that address as well. Similary for your electronic address; if you can't
receive this stuff, how are you going to receive the entrance fee? And
attaching a person to an email (or whatever) address is about as difficult as
attaching a person to a PO Box.
The only way around this is if you very discreetly disseminate your contact
point - but then the only way this little operation can function is if you know
who is likely to, uh, be in a position to collect the lottery prize. But this
means that you know such people, which almost certainly means they know you,
which means (a) it won't be long before there's an FBI file (or worse) on you,
and (b) they can now come after you with RICO since this does amount to a
conspiracy. I know, I know, the way RICO has been stretched they can pretty
well use it any time on any one for any thing, but doing it this way just makes
it so much easier for them.
> >Giving the authorities the source of the
> >"contract" and a list of people interested in that contract is giving
> >even those donut-eating fat-boys a bit much of a head-start.
>
> Not as easy as you'd think.
See above. Not nearly as hard as you think.
> >This is
> >also ignoring the issue of non-corruptible exchange of private keys.
>
> Who said anything about private keys? Ever heard of public-key cryptography?
> That's what this whole system is based on.
Umhhh...there are TWO keys in public-key cryptography; the one used to encrypt
and the one used to decrypt.
> >Even if there really were truly anonymous remailers and such, it would
> >be a simple (and quiet) matter of a warrant to open up those anonymous
> >services, and if you don't think a judge would issue a warrant based on
> >your "lottery" you don't know much about the judicial system.
>
> A judge might issue a warrant, but anonymous remailers don't have to keep
> records, and the best ones don't.
You aren't getting it. They know your address. They "tap" your connection. They
backtrack any messages sent through the anon remailers, tapping each remailer
in turn. They don't even have to let the adminstrators of the anon remailers
know they're being watched, which means the admins can't even notify the world
that they've been compromised. They know who sent you the messages.
For folks with badges and warrants, this stuff is pretty trivial.
> You can't subpoena information that isn't kept.
See above; they don't have to subpoena information when they can get a warrant
and watch the evidence develop itself.
> And any judge thinking of going up against this system would have to
> have a death-wish.
You are making an unwarranted assumption; you have NOT demonstrated that (a)
you are uncatchable, or (b) that you are unprosecutable.
> >Since they know who you are (electronically, anyway)
>
> They WON'T know most people involved.
They'll know who YOU are. Which means they know where stuff is coming from.
Which means they WILL know who is sending it.
> >there are several
> >ways for them to make life very, very miserable for you.
>
> They could do that already. That doesn't mean that they have a right to do
> so.
<smile> There is some extreme irony in that sentence. Please tell me you don't
take yourself so seriously that you don't see it.
> >The simplest is
> >to freeze your account and not let you make any potential payout - which
> >could very well lead to your own life being put in serious jeapordy
> >(these are NOT nice people you're dealing with.)
>
> I guess you've never heard of overseas bank accounts, huh?
I hate to disappoint you, but those numbered Swiss bank accounts no longer work
the way they did in all those old spy flicks. For the privilege of hooking into
the network that allows electronic transfers of funds banks are required to
meet certain criteria, one of which is the ability and willingness to maintain
certain documentation on their accounts and - this is key - honor
warrants/subpeonas/whatever to turn that documentation over to the appropriate
authorities.
Absolutely the system is compromised and abused on a fairly regular basis by
those with Really Big Bucks, but if that is also part of your plan you're going
to have to explain how you plan to go about corrupting this system - and how
you plan to get away with it. One other thing; since they know who you are (see
above) they will be watching very closely, and no matter what you plan to do
with the funds tampering with the banking system iin this way IS a serious
crime in every country (well, every country in which you'd be willing to trust
your deposits) - which means you are now very, very prosecutable.
> >They could even do this
> >without your knowledge by taking every packet that comes out of your
> >site (they know where you money is, remember?) and simply making it
> >disappear. Technically, a rather trivial thing to do.
>
> And the people who try this can be targeted as well. See, the system is
> self-protecting.
No, it is not, because they can get YOU. If you are arrested, the only person
in any serious danger is YOU, and they will get rid of you long before they go
after judges et al.
> Furthermore, anybody who thinks this system is useful and
> beneficial to society will have a strong interest in seeing it continue, and
> thus can be expected to help defend it against recalcitrant officials.
>
> >Then there is the small matter of noone being able to carry out the
> >actual execution; by announcing your little contest, you've alerted the
> >authorities and the target. It will be very difficult indeed to carry
> >out such an assassination and not get caught or killed. You'd better
> >hope it's the latter.
>
> Too bad you're more clueless than most.
Why the insults? Considering your inability to remember what the various parts
you wrote said, you are hardly in a position to do so.
> The mere fact that a person is listed,
> along with a reward amount, says nothing about WHEN the prediction will come
> true, or for that matter if.
From your first post:
> Associated with each name would
> be a dollar figure, the total amount of money the organization has
> received as a contribution, which is the amount they would give for
> correctly "predicting" the person's death, presumably naming the exact
> date.
So they know who, and when - unless your client is actually willing to spend
money on an assassination and NOT receive anything.
> The prediction is kept encrypted, even to the
> organization which receives it, so that the arrival of the decrypt key is
> necessary to discover what it said. No information is provided other than
> this.
They know who you are, which means anything you receive, they receive, and
anything you can read they can read. Even if they can't stop the killing, they
will know where you are to send the payment - which means they can track down
the "winner."
> Even if the named target decides to go underground, his life has already been
> ruined, and this will deter others in similar positions.
>
> >As far as your all-but-inevitable trial goes, I suspect most jurors
> >would find you guilty of soliciting a murder.
>
> Another guy claimed this, but he was unable to explain how this would be
> proven, given the fact that the system carefully avoids documenting any such
> relationship. Proving that a person was actually killed BECAUSE OF this
> system would be difficult.
You don't get it; I didn't say anything about *proving* you guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt, I said you would be probably be *found* guilty. You paid
somebody money on the correct prediction of death; this doesn't look good.
[...snip...]
> And as I pointed out to that other guy, a jury who
> misbehaves and ignores the issue of "reasonable doubt" can, themselves, be
> targeted.
This is not a viable threat, since you have yet to demonstrate that you can get
away with it.
[...snip...]
> Remember, the fact that a death occurred does not prove who did it, or that
> it was the "fault" of the organization making the payment.
They know who you are (see above;) they know who you paid out to (see above;)
they know who received the payment (see above;) they know who was killed and
how (see CNN.) Yes, it is always possible that the Fat Boys won't be able to
connect the dots - but you're certainly stacking the deck against yourself.
[...snip...]
> >You even make the entry price sufficiently high to *discourage* guessing!
>
> So, what's wrong with this? It's an important part of the whole
> arrangement.
It's also an important part in showing the jury that you are catering to
individuals with, how to put this nicely, special knowledge about when an
individual is likely to die. Even Marcia Clark could paint a vidid picture for
the jury with this!
Again, its not about *proving*.
> >It's always possible that a defense attorney could get the jury so
> >wrapped up in the nuances of the definitions of solicitation and murder
> >and they lose sight of what's going on - but are you really willing to
> >bet your freedom on this? I know I'm not.
>
> "Nuances"? Like maybe, "reasonable doubt"? Surely you jest!
Even if you were not convicted (and I am no way suggesting you won't be) there
is the small matter of the inevitable civil trial - like the one OJ is going
through right now. If you really think you can win a civil trial with all the
information that the authorities will have developed for the criminal trial,
you need to take a look at the legal troubles Soldier of Fortune magazine went
through. There is no "reasonable doubt" requirement in civil suits.
> >As long as monies change hands, you're vulnerable.
>
> "Vulnerable" doesn't mean LEGITIMATELY GUILTY.
Legitimately? That's a very subjective term.
> It just means that the people
> who would want to harass such a system would be inclined to misbehave.
<smile> More irony
> I've
> never denied this. However, that doesn't mean that they'll succeed...or
> survive.
It's an empty threat if you are so easy to find.
lunaslide
(Chance Harris) wrote:
Éjimbell (jim...@pacifier.com) wrote:
É: parts 1-3 of 10
É
É: Assassination Politics
É: by Jim Bell.
É
É
É: Part 1
É
É: I've been following the concepts of digital cash and encryption since
É: I read the article in the August 1992 issue of Scientific American on
É: "encrypted signatures." While I've only followed the Digitaliberty area
É: for a few weeks, I can already see a number of points that do (and
É: should!) strongly concern the average savvy individual:
É
É: 1. How can we translate the freedom afforded by the Internet to
É: ordinary life?
É
É: 2. How can we keep the government from banning encryption, digital
É: cash, and other systems that will improve our freedom?
É
É
É: A few months ago, I had a truly and quite literally "revolutionary"
É: idea, and I jokingly called it "Assassination Politics": I speculated on
É: the question of whether an organization could be set up to _legally_
É: announce that it would be awarding a cash prize to somebody who
É: correctly "predicted" the death of one of a list of violators of
É: rights, usually either government employees, officeholders, or
É: appointees. It could ask for anonymous contributions from the public,
É: and individuals would be able send those contributions using digital
É: cash.
É
ÉActually this is a very interesting post.
É
ÉHowever, If I were on a Jury, and the person who was running this
É"lottery", as you call it, were to be tried for murder, I don't
Éthink I'd have a big problem voting for a guilty verdict. They
Écan say its just a "game" and they only intended for "predictions",
Éto come in. But if somebody is providing a framework for a
Éhit-man free market, I don't care what kind of word games you play,
Éthats murder to me. If they could convince me that they actually
Édid not intend for any one to get killed as the result of a "prediction"
É(which I think would require more than just their word on it), then
Éin this potnential juror's opinion, its only manslaughter.
É
ÉEver see that movie "The Dead Pool" ?? (something like that),
Éwith Clint Eastwood ?
Jim Bell and I discussed his theory at great length on the cypherpunks
mailing list, until people got pissed at us for off topic posts. The
theory he has laid out is much more well thought out than you might think
and he has taken into account the prospect of procecuting the organization
for conspiricy to commit murder and accessory to murder and all that
jazz. See, no one would know who the murderer would be and who the target
is or the day that it is scheduled, so they technically can't be
accessories.
If you care to read it and the responses he got, do a web search on
<assassination cypherpunks> on alta vista. It's in the archives.
BTW, it isn't like the Dead Pool.
* * * * * * *
lunaslide * * * * *
The deadliest bullshit is odorless and transparent, * *
* -W. Gibson * * * * *
There's no point to having your eyes open if all yer going to do is stare up your own asshole.
-Sourcerer
* * * *
Carl Byington
In article <4lbn1d$9...@news.pacifier.com>, jim...@pacifier.com says...
>
>Damir Smitlener <da...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>The prosecution will say
>>that, bottom line, you are paying out money if someone is dead on a
>>certain date - and they will be right.
>
>That does not make it a crime, however. The money will be paid even if the
>death is ruled an accident, or suicide, or any other category.
Insurance companies pay money to people (the beneficiary) if others (the
named insured) die. This has been going on for a _long_ time. Basically
this organization is just selling very cheap life insurance (on anyone).
>>You even make the entry price sufficiently high to *discourage* guessing!
>
>So, what's wrong with this? It's an important part of the whole arrangement.
It is called an insurance premium.
You might want to recast this as an alternative insurance mechanism.
- - --
PGP key available from the key servers.
Key fingerprint 95 F4 D3 94 66 BA 92 4E 06 1E 95 F8 74 A8 2F A0
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.7.1
iQCVAwUBMXq0q9ZjPoeWO7BhAQFA5AQAhV51pe/B0v2WeONlcj2MCqBiOvZNrXoB
tRg2wv5iA0rceOoGlPoGdHVbXdanKrQYGP2gN19WN45/87v/AllZjyP5JBAJIE9E
4V+Az+cHXBqUxf0e9geQsaypCvrFeC/qKzrPR7DAMZXGp/T5RjTDX+jSc9YHbV9m
mBsr07bXF3I=
=PZz7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
jimbell
>This guy seems to have a good plan,
I agree with this much of what you've said.
> but it's (to say the very least) sick.
What's your definition of "sick"? Many people apparently disagree with you on
this.
> He seems to forget the fact that such an
>organization as he describes would be advocating murder of men and
>women who have families and friends.
That position is misleading, because it ignores the fact that among the many
effects of this plan would be the elimination of war. I don't know whether you
would call forcibly sending people off to die in a war, "murder," but if you
don't you're a hypocrite. At that point, the question is, "which system would
kill more people"? You won't want to address this issue, but it's vital.
>The author of this manifesto also loses sight of the fact that, in
>order to assassinate a political official, it is necessary to
>locate said official, most likely in a public place.
Not at all! For some randomly-selected potential assassin, considered alone,
that might be true, but one of the most interesting aspects of this plan is that
literally ANYBODY could collect on this reward, including close friends and
family of the target. Remember, to successfully target a person, it isn't
necessary to get everybody able to kill him; it is only necessary to allow ONE
person to do so. Moreover, if the targeted person resigns his office, the plan
has already succeeded. Chances are good that this would be the outcome in most
cases, and getting somebody to replace him in office would be difficult.
>Conspiracies
>aside, it has been demonstrated that most would-be assassins do
>tend to get caught.
That's a statement of past history, given a certain set of assumptions. I
change most of those assumptions, so there is no reason to believe that the
outcome would be the same.
Besides, my plan would work even if EVERY assassin was caught after the fact:
There are plenty of people with AIDS, terminal cancer, or some other medical
problem who would have no fear of staying locked up at government expense (and
get free medical treatment, to boot!) until nature takes its course. I assert
that given the likely fact that a person would dieanyway, he would prefer to die
after having done something useful for society. The fact that you might not
consider it useful is irrelevant.
>It also should not be forgotten that a foreign government could
>decide to overthrow our government by donating millions of dollars
>for the first to correctly "predict" the death of the President.
>There's nothing quite like convincing us to kill our own
>government, is there?
I don't think we need a whole lot of convincing. In any case, what's wrong with
the scenario you just described? Hey, if foreigners want to see one of the
biggest causes of this country's problems dead, more power to them! (Just in
case you think I'm playing favorites, I can't think of a political officeholder
for the last 50 years or more who should be spared the axe. Probably a lot
longer than that!)
>Well, this warrants no further bitching on my part.
I guess that's all it was, "bitching." Care to try again?
Phil Edwards
>
> ShelDrake <shel...@alias.alias.net> wrote:
>
> >This guy seems to have a good plan,
>
> I agree with this much of what you've said.
>
> > but it's (to say the very least) sick.
>
> What's your definition of "sick"? Many people apparently disagree with you on
> this.
>
> > He seems to forget the fact that such an
> >organization as he describes would be advocating murder of men and
> >women who have families and friends.
>
> That position is misleading, because it ignores the fact that among the many
> effects of this plan would be the elimination of war.
...etc. This is the core of it: it's OK for us ("we, the people") to
kill... whoever, really... because by doing so we'd be preventing greater
loss of life.
Arguable. I don't agree myself: I've never believed in killing for peace,
which is what this amounts to.
But hang on a moment - JB isn't only talking about assassinating generals
on the eve of war, Attorney Generals on the eve of Waco or whatever: his
main justification is TAXES. "You work for an organisation which levies a
% of my income, therefore I am entitled to kill you"? If you're looking
for a definition of the word "sick"... (It also means "in a state which
costs you a hell of a lot less money in the UK than in the US", by the
way. Yeah, I'm a *socialist* libertarian. Boo, hiss).
This side of a *collective* settling of accounts, I believe in human
beings' right to life - you, me, murderers, rapists, cops, bailiffs,
Janet Reno and Michael Howard (don't ask). If we're talking
libertarianism, I would have thought that was fairly fundamental. The way
this idea was originally sketched out - when it sounded like a kind of
anarchist Vehm bumping off Enemies of the People - was bad enough; the
way it's (logically) developed - where avoiding getting a price on your
head depends on *popularity* - is horrific.
Yanks - bloodthirsty lot, aren't you?
--
Phil Edwards new...@dircon.co.uk
Q: Are you a Marxist?
A: To the same extent as Marx was when he said, 'I am not a Marxist'.
)
>
> The fact that YOU are willing to throw away 220 years of constitutional
> protections in order to vote for a guilty verdict on such flimsy evidence says
> far more about YOU than the system I've described. I'd say that you have
> already disqualified yourself from any such jury: You haven't even explained
> what evidence, other than the knowledge that somebody's running one of these
> systems, would be necessary to get you to vote "guilty."
>
Perhaps our friend here is willing to shrug at 220
years of judicial precedent. YOU are not only willing to, but
ADVOCATING a system that would bring down 220 years of
constitutional government. Lincoln played with the Constitution
to save the country, and the Court upheld it. I'll have to back
a belief that your system is illegal.
Paradox !-)
--
ivotedeathwecantakeemmaybeheknewwherehistowelwasthirtyseveninaroweeker
(! Paradox !-) Evan Macbeth -UVa '97 ed...@virginia.edu !)
(! http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~edm5s !)
warisallhellgiveaskingnothingthereoflifeisfunfehdickbagwewelcometheodd
Andy Gough
>cha...@ae.sps.mot.com (Chance Harris) wrote:
>>jimbell (jim...@pacifier.com) wrote:
>>to come in. But if somebody is providing a framework for a
>>hit-man free market, I don't care what kind of word games you play,
>>thats murder to me. If they could convince me that they actually
>>did not intend for any one to get killed as the result of a "prediction"
>>(which I think would require more than just their word on it), then
>>in this potnential juror's opinion, its only manslaughter.
>My my, you certainly do love a rush to judgment, don't you?!?
Now THIS is funny! The guy who is proposing the establishment of a hit-man free
market, where people can contract for hits anonymously, accuses someone else of
rushing to judgement! ROFL!!!!
>The fact that YOU are willing to throw away 220 years of constitutional
>protections in order to vote for a guilty verdict on such flimsy evidence says
>far more about YOU than the system I've described.
And it gets even better! He now asserts that his anonymous hit-man service is a
fairer system than exsiting due process of law! A jury of one's peers is
inferior to anonymous contracts for murder!
> I'd say that you have
>already disqualified yourself from any such jury: You haven't even explained
>what evidence, other than the knowledge that somebody's running one of these
>systems, would be necessary to get you to vote "guilty."
>BTW, you've also failed to explain how "authorities" are going to be able to
>distinguish between a random killing and one which was motivated by collecting a
>reward.
East to set you up for a sting, however. The police send in a hit contract,
with payment, for "Citizen X". They then fake Citizen X's death, complete with
news stories and a fake funeral. Your hit man service pays off. Bingo, they
would seem to have all the evidence they need against you for:
1) conspiracy to committ murder
2) running a criminal enterprise
>One more thing for you to ponder. If I were just an ordinary citizen,
>unaffiliated with either the organization, the predictor, the defendant, or
>anyone else, and I discoved your identity as a juror on such a case that (if a
>conviction occurred) would have to have been unanimous, I would consider that
>your decision to convict was clearly an intentional miscarriage of justice. At
>that point, I would.
>1. Publicize your name to the world, anonymously, explaining what you did.
>2. Put up a hefty donation naming you. I assume numerous other people would
>be inclined to do the same.
Ah, but this works both ways, doesn't it?
Consider if the government wants to get rid of YOU. Government Official Z sends
in an anonymous hit contract on YOU, along with $1M in digital cash. After you
get murdered, presumably your secretary will be able to process the transactions
to payoff.
Your proposed system is therefore self-terminating (literally).
Of course, you would put your own name on the list, right? Anything else would
be unethical, right?
Then again, if you don't, the government could just setup it's own anonymous
hitman service--to compete with yours--and put your name on their list with a
$1M bounty. That might be too much bother, though--much easier to visit you in
the middle of the night and put a bullet in your head.
Regards,
Andy
Disclaimer:
All views expressed are my own opinions, and not necessarily
those of Intel Corporation.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Andy Gough | Internet: andrew_...@ccm.ch.intel.com
Intel Corporation CH5-131 | ICBM : 111^55'42" W; 33^18'23" N
5000 W. Chandler Blvd. | "Knowledge is power."
Chandler, AZ 85226 | -- Francis Bacon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preston D. L. Wilson
wrote:
[flashforward]
>>Well, this warrants no further bitching on my part.
>
>I guess that's all it was, "bitching." Care to try again?
>
Sure. I'll do my best.
[flashback]
>ShelDrake <shel...@alias.alias.net> wrote:
>
>>This guy seems to have a good plan,
>
>I agree with this much of what you've said.
>
>> but it's (to say the very least) sick.
>
>What's your definition of "sick"? Many people apparently disagree with you on
>this.
>
My definition of "sick" is anything that makes me nauseous. This
"plan" of yours fits that criterion perfectly. Why does it make me
sick? Because, despite all of your grasping for reasons why you
"won't get caught," the fact remains that (intentional or not) people
would die as a result of this system. Let's be conservative here and
estimate that only 20% of the deaths of public officials for which
there was a reward were actually murder. (Not 20% were deemed in a
court to be murder; just that 20% were *actually* murder.) The
administrators of this system would know that. Let's also say that 2%
of that 20% were actually innocent; they were trying to help their
country and a subordinate made a mistake that was blamed on them, or
worse still, someone just decided, on a whim, to off them by putting
up a reward. The administrators would know this, too. Can you
imagine the guilt, knowing that you assisted in the death of
somebody's mother, father, brother, sister, son, or daughter? When
guilt sets in, my friend, it doesn't matter what a judge says. It
doesn't matter what a jury decides, when guilt sets in any true human
would rather be in jail anyways. You can fool the courts, Mr. Bell,
but can you really fool your conscience?
>> He seems to forget the fact that such an
>>organization as he describes would be advocating murder of men and
>>women who have families and friends.
>
>That position is misleading, because it ignores the fact that among the many
>effects of this plan would be the elimination of war. I don't know whether you
>would call forcibly sending people off to die in a war, "murder," but if you
>don't you're a hypocrite. At that point, the question is, "which system would
>kill more people"? You won't want to address this issue, but it's vital.
>
>
Oh, come on. Elimination of WAR? How do you intend to eliminate war?
Consider:
Some foreign country gets taken over by a regime that is moderately
Naziesque. This country starts behaving aggressively towards us. We
decide to put a hit on their leader or (more politically correctly)
take out a large life insurance policy on him/her, naming as
beneficiary the first person to correctly predict his/her death.
Suppose this person dies (of a heart attack or, more violently, at the
hands of one of his officers) and the payoff is made. This country
could still have some sort of leadership, and they might get a little
ticked off. They start a war with us. Boom. There's your war.
Consider again, that a faction in our country decides to kill the
President. Suppose that this faction is so large as to take up an
entire geographical region, such as the West, from California to the
Dakotas and everything in between. (Hawaii and Alaska stay with the
East, because everybody knows that the best salsa is made in New York
City.) The Hunchback of DC (Algore) is sworn in and decides to take
vengeance. We have a civil war. Don't even tell me that the
government won't know who gets the payoff. If the people don't report
the payoff on their taxes, they breaking the law (and even worse,
making themselves look guilty), and the only way they're going to keep
the government from finding out is by not spending any of their money.
What good is it, then? Well, back to the scenario. Algore knows that
the West is to blame, and they want to overthrow the government. Hey
kids, can you say Civil War II?
Imagine that France decides to off Tipper Gore. You think that Al
would think twice about bombing the Eiffel Tower?
>>The author of this manifesto also loses sight of the fact that, in
>>order to assassinate a political official, it is necessary to
>>locate said official, most likely in a public place.
>
>Not at all! For some randomly-selected potential assassin, considered alone,
>that might be true, but one of the most interesting aspects of this plan is that
>literally ANYBODY could collect on this reward, including close friends and
>family of the target.
Listen, if the close friends and family of someone take out a life
insurance policy under which they will only benefit if their
friend/family member dies on a specific day, and they can collect
guilt-free, something is terribly wrong with the human race.
>Remember, to successfully target a person, it isn't
>necessary to get everybody able to kill him; it is only necessary to allow ONE
>person to do so. Moreover, if the targeted person resigns his office, the plan
>has already succeeded. Chances are good that this would be the outcome in most
>cases, and getting somebody to replace him in office would be difficult.
>
>>Conspiracies
>>aside, it has been demonstrated that most would-be assassins do
>>tend to get caught.
>
>That's a statement of past history, given a certain set of assumptions. I
>change most of those assumptions, so there is no reason to believe that the
>outcome would be the same.
>
How do you plan to protect the killer? Does your organization have an
amnesty program, like the Hitman's Protection Program? Give 'em a new
name and face, send 'em off to Arkansas, and give 'em a nice house and
car? And a job with the organization? HOW would the outcome be
anything different from what we've seen with so many assassinations?
People slip up. People get caught. You still don't see that all your
electronic anonymity is great except for the simple fact that in order
for someone to commit murder, they have to be there.
>Besides, my plan would work even if EVERY assassin was caught after the fact:
>There are plenty of people with AIDS, terminal cancer, or some other medical
>problem who would have no fear of staying locked up at government expense (and
>get free medical treatment, to boot!) until nature takes its course. I assert
>that given the likely fact that a person would dieanyway, he would prefer to die
>after having done something useful for society. The fact that you might not
>consider it useful is irrelevant.
>
This premise is good, except I don't know any AIDS victims who are
homicidal. Most of the ones I know are merely trying to prolong their
lives as long as possible, and to enjoy themselves. It's hard to
enjoy yourself in Florida if you're in a maximum security prison in
New York. Or worse, if you're dead. Many states still allow death as
a punishment, or did you forget that too? (As for people who would
kill the President just so they could get the death sentence to end
their suffering, that's stupid because the trials take too long to
make that practical. Just call Dr. Kevorkian.)
>>It also should not be forgotten that a foreign government could
>>decide to overthrow our government by donating millions of dollars
>>for the first to correctly "predict" the death of the President.
>>There's nothing quite like convincing us to kill our own
>>government, is there?
>
>I don't think we need a whole lot of convincing.
I would. I just guess I'm more human than you. Go figure.
>In any case, what's wrong with
>the scenario you just described? Hey, if foreigners want to see one of the
>biggest causes of this country's problems dead, more power to them! (Just in
>case you think I'm playing favorites, I can't think of a political officeholder
>for the last 50 years or more who should be spared the axe. Probably a lot
>longer than that!)
>
Mr. Ball, it's one thing to wish a political official dead. It's
another thing to actually see it through to its completion. In
another post, you said that those of us who oppose your plan are
throwing away 250 years of Constitutional freedom, or something dumb
(er... sorry) like that. The Constitution was set up with the same
goals you have. It was written so that the people could overthrow the
government, but they just had to wait until every four years to do it.
It's perfectly legal, it's called running for office and voting out
those who don't deserve to serve you. You're just letting impatience
take over. Want a change? Did you vote in our nation's last election
(not only Presidential; ANY election)? I'd really not be surprised if
the answer is "no." If it is indeed "no," you have absolutely no
right to complain. If, however, your answer is "yes," just think
about all the people who would be taking out contracts on people's
heads, and wonder if they voted.
Let your fellow Americans help you to clean up your government; don't
take the law into your own hands. Laws aside, you must remember that
people, truly *human* people, know when they have violated a basic
law. There are laws of *humanity* in addition to the laws of our
Nation.
>>Well, this warrants no further bitching on my part.
>
>I guess that's all it was, "bitching." Care to try again?
>
I know, I left my self open to that one. You got me. I guess you
score a point there. If the rest of America (and the world) has any
sense (and conscience), however, that should be the only point you've
won.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Due to the inactivity of the ALIAS.NET nymserver, this clearsigned
block hereby certifies that Shel...@alias.alias.net and
pd...@servtech.com are the same person. Therefore, replies from
pd...@servtech.com regarding messages sent to
Shel...@alias.alias.net are indeed valid.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.7.1
iQB1AwUBMXvvxKZFXXgg/W8lAQE9VQL/aAt8SoSPSCQc3lWCRM6yGIWwtPxEQsRB
ksp1f0VsUXbVHh2LZTROTSu7mveuRlAVGyzk/QloCufqZheAytwm3bAT2ESWeLQz
dlGBz3mt/vv9dX0XKWI3q7FiJXMwSP1s
=BeZb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
_____ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _
| _ |___ ___ ___ |_ ___ ___ | \ | | | | | |_| |___ ___ ___
| __| _| -_|_ -| _| . | || | |_ | |__ _ | | | | |_ -| . | |
|__| _| ___|___|_| ___|_|_||___/ _| ____|_| ____|_|_|___|___|_|_|
pd...@servtech.com/1024/12B8CED1/EA66A373 51E5C1E4 49E82737 5267D3C3
escam...@world.std.com
I've been following the Assassination Politics discussion for some time.
I have not yet seen a mention of the key relevant legal concept:
Insurable Interest.
The concept exists in US law. I suspect it does in most countries.
IANAL, but no-one else seems to have mentioned it.
The idea is that you can't take out a life insurance policy on just
anyone -- nor make any other bet against just anyone's life. Who exactly
you can varies, though AFAIK it always includes one's spouse. (Perhaps a
bad idea, since women murdering their husbands is too common, but there
it is)
And that is the concept the Assassination Politics would run afoul of
legally. The govt doesn't have to prove the organizer was accessory to
murder, before or after the fact. Just that they have no insurable
interest in the target.
Whether Assassination Politics could succeed practically is another
question.
Escamilio
--
Exonize- 1. To censor. 2. To crap on civil rights as a lame duck
3. To trade liberty for security from bad words.
bren...@richmond.infi.net
I've been following this thread with much fascination, because it's the
kind of stuff really good sci-fi books are made of... I'm only going to
respond to one specific portion of Jim Bell's post, because it's the one
that caught my interest specifically. To this end, I've clipped out a lot
of the "extraneous" portions of the post. If any part I've excluded is NOT
extraneous, well, I suppose I'll hear about it soon enough. :-)
RECAP: Jim Bell postulates that with the advent of "electronic money", it
would be possible to create a legal organization that would create a sort
of "death lottery," where people could enter and win money if they
correctly "predicticted" when someone would die. If we postulate that the
only people who enter the game are people who are guilty of crimes against
humanity, corruption, massive abuse of power, etc., it could be, in theory,
a strong deterrent to those very crimes, because someone could bet money on
a specific time of death, and then go out and assassinate that person, and
collect the money - all completely anonymously.
This is my understanding of the original post.
In <4lekqk$b...@news.pacifier.com>, jim...@pacifier.com (jimbell) writes:
>ShelDrake <shel...@alias.alias.net> wrote:
>
>>This guy seems to have a good plan,
>
>I agree with this much of what you've said.
>
>> but it's (to say the very least) sick.
>
>What's your definition of "sick"? Many people apparently disagree with you on
>this.
>
>> He seems to forget the fact that such an
>>organization as he describes would be advocating murder of men and
>>women who have families and friends.
>
>That position is misleading, because it ignores the fact that among the many
>effects of this plan would be the elimination of war. I don't know whether you
>would call forcibly sending people off to die in a war, "murder," but if you
>don't you're a hypocrite. At that point, the question is, "which system would
>kill more people"? You won't want to address this issue, but it's vital.
The question is not "which system would kill more people?" The question
is, rather, "is the system legitimate in spite of its increased
efficiency?"
My response to this is a strong "No." A system that removes any possible
involvement or repsonsibility for the murder of a human being, even a total
bastard of a human being, carries its own consequences. At this point,
high-level military officials suffer from this condition - they send units
(not people, mind you - units) out to face other units and they use code
words like "acceptable losses" and "friendly fire" to stand for how many of
"our boys" will never go home again and code words like "enemy losses" for
how many of "their boys" will never go home again and code words like
"collateral damage" for how many civilians who were minding their own damn
business got blown up in the latest string of bombs that got dropped on
whatever "targets of opportunity" (a code word for "things we'd really like
to blow up") were in their neighborhood. Your system makes this kind of
detached view of murder accessible to everyone - which disturbs me.
A war is a big fight someone stages but doesn't get involved in. Your
system is essentially the same thing - just with mercenaries instead of
conscripted soldiers. To put $4 million dollars on someone's head - whether
it is stated "for entertainment purposes only" or not - is no different
than the Ayatollah Khomeni calling for the assassination of Salmon Rushdie.
When we start viewing people we don't like in terms of "how much money do I
have to put in the 'death lottery' before someone offs him?" we are taking
a mentality that greatly de-values life, views life in terms of units or
utils of pleasure (for you economy types). Ultimately, where would this
set-up go? Would it be used only for the huge war criminals? Or simply be
restricted to the tyrants and dictators? Even if it were, who is to say
another system wouldn't be set up by the tyrants and dictators to combat
it? And all this aside, what would it do the mentality of the people
involved in it? Would they begin evaluating people in terms of "Cash/Kill
ratios?"
I don't mind admitting I find this an extremely disturbing idea.
Fascinating, yes, but distrubing nonetheless.
Christopher B. Wright (bren...@richmond.infi.net) Team OS/2
+---------------------------------------------------
+"We are all born originals - why is it so many of us die copies?"
+(Edward Young)
+---------------------------------------------------
+It's a shame politicians don't eat their young - if they did, the
+gene pool would be a lot cleaner.
+---------------------------------------------------
jimbell
>On Mon, 22 Apr 1996 00:44:44 GMT, jim...@pacifier.com (jimbell)
>
>>> but it's (to say the very least) sick.
>>
>>What's your definition of "sick"? Many people apparently disagree with you on
>>this.
>>
>My definition of "sick" is anything that makes me nauseous. This
>"plan" of yours fits that criterion perfectly. Why does it make me
>sick? Because, despite all of your grasping for reasons why you
>"won't get caught,"
It isn't just that "you won't get caught." You won't be guilty of a crime,
unless (hypothetically) you happen to be one of those self-selected people who
decide to collect the rewards.
>the fact remains that (intentional or not) people
>would die as a result of this system.
Already plenty of people die as a consequence of the current social system.
Over 100 million people in this century alone as a consequence of war. Had
WWIII occurred, many more would have died. Can you call that "a success"?
So how about doing an honest comparison, okay?
> Let's be conservative here and
>estimate that only 20% of the deaths of public officials for which
>there was a reward were actually murder. (Not 20% were deemed in a
>court to be murder; just that 20% were *actually* murder.) The
>administrators of this system would know that. Let's also say that 2%
>of that 20% were actually innocent; they were trying to help their
>country and a subordinate made a mistake that was blamed on them, or
>worse still, someone just decided, on a whim, to off them by putting
>up a reward. The administrators would know this, too. Can you
>imagine the guilt, knowing that you assisted in the death of
>somebody's mother, father, brother, sister, son, or daughter?
That's odd. Draft boards during the Vietnam war operated with the knowledge
that their draftees might die. Did these people sleep well at night? Some did,
apparently.
> When
>guilt sets in, my friend, it doesn't matter what a judge says. It
>doesn't matter what a jury decides, when guilt sets in any true human
>would rather be in jail anyways. You can fool the courts, Mr. Bell,
>but can you really fool your conscience?
Actually, I believe it woudl be immoral to NOT use this system, if it would
reduce the harm done compared to the current political system. I have no
problem showing that it ought to; can you show that it won't?!? Let's do a
comparison.
>>> He seems to forget the fact that such an
>>>organization as he describes would be advocating murder of men and
>>>women who have families and friends.
>>
>>That position is misleading, because it ignores the fact that among the many
>>effects of this plan would be the elimination of war. I don't know whether you
>>would call forcibly sending people off to die in a war, "murder," but if you
>>don't you're a hypocrite. At that point, the question is, "which system would
>>kill more people"? You won't want to address this issue, but it's vital.
>Oh, come on. Elimination of WAR? How do you intend to eliminate war?
It sounds like you haven't read the essay...carefully. Surprisingly enough,
this is one of the outcomes of the system which is the LEAST challenged; I think
most people who understand this system recognize that war would be impossible.
"Wars", at least large scale ones, occur because the leaders of one group of
people force its citizens to go to war against another group. They accomplish
this through propaganda, to make the war look "justified."
I content that if the guilty leaders can be eliminated easily, nobody will want
to go to war.
>Consider:
>Some foreign country gets taken over by a regime that is moderately
>Naziesque. This country starts behaving aggressively towards us. We
>decide to put a hit on their leader or (more politically correctly)
>take out a large life insurance policy on him/her, naming as
>beneficiary the first person to correctly predict his/her death.
>Suppose this person dies (of a heart attack or, more violently, at the
>hands of one of his officers) and the payoff is made. This country
>could still have some sort of leadership, and they might get a little
>ticked off. They start a war with us. Boom. There's your war.
That's a poor analysis. You've implicitly assume that this "moderately
Naziesque" regime can exist, in a world in which the "Assassination Poltics"
idea is implemented. Quite to the contrary, it would have already taken down
that government, so that there will be no "moderately Naziesque regime."
If _your_ country became "moderately Naziesque", wouldn't you want to eliminate
that government? Would you want to fight its war? Would you want to pay the
taxes to afford that war? If not, then that "moderately Naziesque" regime is
history.
>Consider again, that a faction in our country decides to kill the
>President. Suppose that this faction is so large as to take up an
>entire geographical region, such as the West, from California to the
>Dakotas and everything in between. (Hawaii and Alaska stay with the
>East, because everybody knows that the best salsa is made in New York
>City.) The Hunchback of DC (Algore) is sworn in and decides to take
>vengeance. We have a civil war.
Question: Who wants a civil war? My region of the country is not going to war
against your region of the country just because you decide to do the rest of us
a favor! We don't want to waste the money, we don't want to waste our sons in
war, etc. No civil war.
> Don't even tell me that the
>government won't know who gets the payoff. If the people don't report
>the payoff on their taxes, they breaking the law (and even worse,
>making themselves look guilty), and the only way they're going to keep
>the government from finding out is by not spending any of their money.
Hardy har har! Hell, guy, there WON"T BE a government! No taxes either. Go
back and re-read my essay, and THINK about it. Nobody who enforces for the
government will be able to keep his job. Anybody who does the government's job
will become the enemy of everyone else.
>What good is it, then? Well, back to the scenario. Algore knows that
>the West is to blame, and they want to overthrow the government. Hey
>kids, can you say Civil War II?
Who is he going to get to fight on "his" side? If I was in "his" region of the
country, and I was asked to fight HIS war, I'd probably decide that one too few
government officials had died. You're going to have to explain how he could
orchestrate a civil war.
>Imagine that France decides to off Tipper Gore. You think that Al
>would think twice about bombing the Eiffel Tower?
Who says we'll KNOW who decided to kill some public official? It's all
anonymous, remember? That's part of why the system is so effective: Had it
been functioning it pre-WWII Europe, the Jews of Germany (as well as any German
citizen who didn't want war) and the citizens of the rest of Europe and
America could have combined their money to purchase Hitler's death, and anybody
who took his place who had similar goals.
>>>The author of this manifesto also loses sight of the fact that, in
>>>order to assassinate a political official, it is necessary to
>>>locate said official, most likely in a public place.
>>
>>Not at all! For some randomly-selected potential assassin, considered alone,
>>that might be true, but one of the most interesting aspects of this plan is that
>>literally ANYBODY could collect on this reward, including close friends and
>>family of the target.
>Listen, if the close friends and family of someone take out a life
>insurance policy under which they will only benefit if their
>friend/family member dies on a specific day, and they can collect
>guilt-free, something is terribly wrong with the human race.
Something is ALREADY "terribly wrong with the human race." We have oppression,
we have wars, we have authoritarian governments, we have taxes. I will get rid
of all four, and more... If you don't think I can, why not look at the system
carefully to see why it won't...or will.
>>>Conspiracies
>>>aside, it has been demonstrated that most would-be assassins do
>>>tend to get caught.
>>
>>That's a statement of past history, given a certain set of assumptions. I
>>change most of those assumptions, so there is no reason to believe that the
>>outcome would be the same.
>>
>How do you plan to protect the killer?
He'll be self-selected, unidentified, and unknown to anyone else. As long as he
keeps his mouth shut, and gets away with the killing, he'll probably be safe.
This may be difficult for those targeting the very few people protected by
24-hour protection, but for the vast majority of government officials and
employees, that will not be the case.
Remember, it is easy to forget that while the term "assassination" is most
commonly applied to killings of _high_ level government employees, I intend it
to mean killings of people at all levels, most of whom have little or no
protection.
> Does your organization have an
>amnesty program, like the Hitman's Protection Program? Give 'em a new
>name and face, send 'em off to Arkansas, and give 'em a nice house and
>car? And a job with the organization?
None of this would be needed. If they escaped the scene of the killing and were
unidentified as of that time, it is unlikely they'd be caught.
Remember, the Unabomber wasn't caught for 17+ years; why should you assume that
somebody else equally careful can't do a similar thing?
> HOW would the outcome be
>anything different from what we've seen with so many assassinations?
First, it would be very different. The reasons are numerous. FIrst, while you
seem to think we've had "so many assassinations," I'm talking about THOUSANDS
and maybe even tens of thousands. So many that resignations would come in a
flood, depopulating the government.
The reason that assassinations (in particular, of low- and medium- level people)
are so rare today is that killing is inherently a risky business, and it is
extremely unlikely that _one_ person is sufficiently motivated to try it. But
if the baser desires of hundreds or even thousands of citizens could be pooled,
monetarily, in such a way so that a single person is rewarded if he accomplishes
their fondest desires, that person has a LARGE motivation to do the job.
Probably $10,000 per hit for medium-level people.
>People slip up. People get caught. You still don't see that all your
>electronic anonymity is great except for the simple fact that in order
>for someone to commit murder, they have to be there.
They didn't have to "be there" in Oklahoma city? Well, yes, they did have to,
sorta, but not for very long. In any case, whatever risks that still exist
will be adequatedly rewarded. Whoever wishes to collect the reward will do so,
anonymously.
>>Besides, my plan would work even if EVERY assassin was caught after the fact:
>>There are plenty of people with AIDS, terminal cancer, or some other medical
>>problem who would have no fear of staying locked up at government expense (and
>>get free medical treatment, to boot!) until nature takes its course. I assert
>>that given the likely fact that a person would dieanyway, he would prefer to die
>>after having done something useful for society. The fact that you might not
>>consider it useful is irrelevant.
>>
>This premise is good, except I don't know any AIDS victims who are
>homicidal. Most of the ones I know are merely trying to prolong their
>lives as long as possible, and to enjoy themselves.
Perhaps they think they can do nothing else? Look, people volunteer to go to
war if they think the cause is just. I assert that I can convince enough people
that this system will actually achieve many if not all of the benefits I
describe. If I'm right, they have every reason to help it succeed, and it will
give them an opportunity to achieve something.
> It's hard to
>enjoy yourself in Florida if you're in a maximum security prison in
>New York. Or worse, if you're dead. Many states still allow death as
>a punishment, or did you forget that too? (As for people who would
>kill the President just so they could get the death sentence to end
>their suffering, that's stupid because the trials take too long to
>make that practical. Just call Dr. Kevorkian.)
I think there's a good likelihood that there will be people who think they are
competent enough to NOT get caught. And many of them will be right. Further,
even if they are caught, I think there will be enough jurors who are sympathetic
with the goal (getting rid of government) that convictions will become
increasingly rare.
>>>It also should not be forgotten that a foreign government could
>>>decide to overthrow our government by donating millions of dollars
>>>for the first to correctly "predict" the death of the President.
>>>There's nothing quite like convincing us to kill our own
>>>government, is there?
>>
>>I don't think we need a whole lot of convincing.
>I would. I just guess I'm more human than you. Go figure.
Apparently many people disagree with the "convincing" issue. And as for the
"more human" angle, before you come to any firm conclusions about that you need
to do a far more careful analysis of what my system would likely accomplish.
>>In any case, what's wrong with
>>the scenario you just described? Hey, if foreigners want to see one of the
>>biggest causes of this country's problems dead, more power to them! (Just in
>>case you think I'm playing favorites, I can't think of a political officeholder
>>for the last 50 years or more who should be spared the axe. Probably a lot
>>longer than that!)
>Mr. Ball, it's one thing to wish a political official dead. It's
>another thing to actually see it through to its completion. In
>another post, you said that those of us who oppose your plan are
>throwing away 250 years of Constitutional freedom, or something dumb
>(er... sorry) like that. The Constitution was set up with the same
>goals you have. It was written so that the people could overthrow the
>government, but they just had to wait until every four years to do it.
Everything operates faster today. It used to be that it probably took many
weeks to get a letter from Georgia to New Hampshire. Today an email makes the
journey in a few seconds. Overthrowing the government every four years may have
made sense in 1783, but I contend we ought to speed up the process commensurate
with modern technology.
>It's perfectly legal, it's called running for office and voting out
>those who don't deserve to serve you.
As I pointed out in another response, the Constitution merely specifies the form
of government; it does not guarantee that there will be people found to fill
those offices. "What if you gave an election and NOBODY came?"
>You're just letting impatience
>take over. Want a change? Did you vote in our nation's last election
>(not only Presidential; ANY election)?
I vote in every election.
> I'd really not be surprised if
>the answer is "no." If it is indeed "no," you have absolutely no
>right to complain. If, however, your answer is "yes," just think
>about all the people who would be taking out contracts on people's
>heads, and wonder if they voted.
It wouldn't matter if they voted or not; they'll have found a way to actually
influence government, one that really works.
>Let your fellow Americans help you to clean up your government; don't
>take the law into your own hands.
The system isn't working, get it? The people who are in office make up the
rules to keep the system out of the control of the citizenry and in the control
of the apparatchiks. When's the last time YOU voted for a Federal government
tax increase? A Congressional pay increase? Hint: You've NEVER voted for
these things, and if you let the Congress have its way, you never will. I think
we need to "take the law into our own hands," and get rid of a political system
that has been abused terribly.
> Laws aside, you must remember that
>people, truly *human* people, know when they have violated a basic
>law. There are laws of *humanity* in addition to the laws of our
>Nation.
Have you determined whether or not the implementation of my system might
actually IMPROVE society? Read it carefully. I don't ask you to accept
anything blindly, but I think you need to realize that it is at least
conceivable that it will solve numerous problems that heretofore haven't been
considered solvable. Before you reject it as an idea, maybe you ought to look
at it far more carefully.
jimbell
>jimbell wrote:
>>
>> > He seems to forget the fact that such an
>> >organization as he describes would be advocating murder of men and
>> >women who have families and friends.
>>
>> That position is misleading, because it ignores the fact that among the many
>> effects of this plan would be the elimination of war.
>...etc. This is the core of it: it's OK for us ("we, the people") to
>kill... whoever, really... because by doing so we'd be preventing greater
>loss of life.
The legitimacy of such a position depends on whether the assertion is, in fact,
correct. Can you understand why I think it is correct, in this case?
>Arguable. I don't agree myself: I've never believed in killing for peace,
>which is what this amounts to.
ALL war is billed as "killing for peace." The issue, I think, is whether or
not we are going to continue to allow governments to trick whole populations
into going to war for the interests of those in government. (see part 2 of
essay) I think I've given a fair argument that the system I describe would
eliminate that.
>But hang on a moment - JB isn't only talking about assassinating generals
>on the eve of war, Attorney Generals on the eve of Waco or whatever: his
>main justification is TAXES.
That's certainly one vital issue, yes. But not the only one.
>"You work for an organisation which levies a
>% of my income, therefore I am entitled to kill you"?
Bernard Goetz justified shooting four people on the fact he was being robbed.
Many people agreed with his actions. Many more agree, in general, that when
robbery is occurring lethal force is justified. The question is, "are taxes
theft?" Libertarians believe they are, indeed, theft.
>This side of a *collective* settling of accounts, I believe in human
>beings' right to life - you, me, murderers, rapists, cops, bailiffs,
>Janet Reno and Michael Howard (don't ask). If we're talking
>libertarianism, I would have thought that was fairly fundamental. The way
>this idea was originally sketched out - when it sounded like a kind of
>anarchist Vehm bumping off Enemies of the People - was bad enough; the
>way it's (logically) developed - where avoiding getting a price on your
>head depends on *popularity* - is horrific.
Can you think of a better way to do it? I mean, an EFFECTIVE way. One that
really works?
>Yanks - bloodthirsty lot, aren't you?
Please read it again; maybe someday you'll understand that the net number of
killings will actually DECREASE due to the operation of this system. Political
oppression will certainly decrease, as well.
Why, exactly, do you think wars occur, anyway?
Preston D. L. Wilson
>
>It isn't just that "you won't get caught." You won't be guilty of a crime,
>unless (hypothetically) you happen to be one of those self-selected people who
>decide to collect the rewards.
>
That's my point. That's the person who can and probably will get
caught.
>>the fact remains that (intentional or not) people
>>would die as a result of this system.
>
>Already plenty of people die as a consequence of the current social system.
>Over 100 million people in this century alone as a consequence of war. Had
>WWIII occurred, many more would have died. Can you call that "a success"?
>
>So how about doing an honest comparison, okay?
>
Honest comparison? Okay. People go to war. Granted, some (many)
tend to cease bodily functions permanently while on that journey.
These people, however, were not sent to die. They were sent to help
their country. If they don't like the cause for the war, go to
Canada. Better still, just don't enlist in the armed services. The
people who have been sent away "to die in war" over the recent years
have been, in your terms, "self-selected." There has been no draft
for a very long time, because we have enough people who join the
military with the full knowledge that such a job has certain
occupational hazards. The people who send them to another country are
merely asking them to do their job. If these people want to ensure
that they don't die in war, they should stay OUT of the reserves.
They have only themselves to blame. As for those who happen to be
civilians that die in war, those people are morned by everyone, on
both sides. Nobody is to blame for their deaths. And you know what?
When civilians die in a war, their friends and families seldom blame
their own country; they blame the country who did the killing. These
people want the war to continue so the killers get punished.
>> Let's be conservative here and
>>estimate that only 20% of the deaths of public officials for which
>>there was a reward were actually murder. (Not 20% were deemed in a
>>court to be murder; just that 20% were *actually* murder.) The
>>administrators of this system would know that. Let's also say that 2%
>>of that 20% were actually innocent; they were trying to help their
>>country and a subordinate made a mistake that was blamed on them, or
>>worse still, someone just decided, on a whim, to off them by putting
>>up a reward. The administrators would know this, too. Can you
>>imagine the guilt, knowing that you assisted in the death of
>>somebody's mother, father, brother, sister, son, or daughter?
>
>That's odd. Draft boards during the Vietnam war operated with the knowledge
>that their draftees might die. Did these people sleep well at night? Some >did, apparently.
>
Some did. NOT all. And once again, it was not intentional. There
have been no draft boards for a long time. Using that as an example
is misleading because we should not try to atone for our "past sins."
The draft of which you are speaking is in the past, and that is where
it will stay.
>> When
>>guilt sets in, my friend, it doesn't matter what a judge says. It
>>doesn't matter what a jury decides, when guilt sets in any true human
>>would rather be in jail anyways. You can fool the courts, Mr. Bell,
>>but can you really fool your conscience?
>
>Actually, I believe it woudl be immoral to NOT use this system, if it would
>reduce the harm done compared to the current political system. I have no
>problem showing that it ought to; can you show that it won't?!? Let's do a
>comparison.
>
Here you go playing God again. Let's choose one person to die in
order to prevent another from dying.
>>>> He seems to forget the fact that such an
>>>>organization as he describes would be advocating murder of men and
>>>>women who have families and friends.
>>>
>>>That position is misleading, because it ignores the fact that among the many
>>>effects of this plan would be the elimination of war. I don't know whether you
>>>would call forcibly sending people off to die in a war, "murder," but if you
>>>don't you're a hypocrite. At that point, the question is, "which system would
>>>kill more people"? You won't want to address this issue, but it's vital.
Once again, I must emphasize that today people are not forcibly sent
off to war. They are entirely volunteers in that they have decided to
enlist in the armed forces. The government has not drafted ordinary
people in years; we have no reason to believe that it would start.
People go to war of their own free will. Let's take the hypothetical
case in which a man in the armed forces decides that he *doesn't* want
to go to war. It is a simple matter to get oneself dishonorably
discharged, and (amidst some embarassment) to "save ones own life."
If, for some reason the draft is reinstated, tell me that there's no
way that a person can fail a physical exam. I could name a half dozen
on the spot. Once again, people are responsible for their *own*
lives.
>It sounds like you haven't read the essay...carefully. Surprisingly enough,
>this is one of the outcomes of the system which is the LEAST challenged; I think
>most people who understand this system recognize that war would be impossible.
>"Wars", at least large scale ones, occur because the leaders of one group of
>people force its citizens to go to war against another group. They accomplish
>this through propaganda, to make the war look "justified."
>
I've studied propaganda. It is very convincing. But if someone
doesn't want to fight, or if they have *any* brains at all, it is VERY
easy to know that a message is propaganda. During times of war, it
can safely be said that you can tell when the government is spouting
propaganda, because their mouths are open. And if they're telling
lies, DON'T LISTEN TO THEM. Form your own opinions and values, like a
normal human being.
I could also make a case for propaganda. Propaganda is merely a tool
for convincing people to share your beliefs. If you run a
propagandistic ad for your program, with a large banner at the top
that says "MURDER IS GOOD," some people would probably go for it. But
it must not be forgotten that people who fundamentally don't believe
in murder would not buy it. Propaganda is like a good debate. And
since we live in such a free government, we get propaganda from all
angles. From the government, against the government. For a certain
company, against that company. We have to be intelligent human beings
and decide for *ourselves.*
>I content that if the guilty leaders can be eliminated easily, nobody will want
>to go to war.
>
In practice, there is no such thing as a guilty leader. Only the
people who voted him/her into power. And if it's the case of a
revolution, chances are good that your system would fall apart
anyways. Do you think that a good revolution would allow the Internet
to remain functional? Do you think that the Internet could remain
functional at all, with your system sitting on it? I would imagine
that all remailers, at least in the affected countries, would be shut
down. Before you could do anything about it.
Nobody wants to go to war anyways. But they do, out of PRIDE. Out of
DUTY. Because they know that our government is the best God damn
government in the world. And if that's not propaganda, I don't know
what the hell is.
>>Consider:
>
>>Some foreign country gets taken over by a regime that is moderately
>>Naziesque. This country starts behaving aggressively towards us. We
>>decide to put a hit on their leader or (more politically correctly)
>>take out a large life insurance policy on him/her, naming as
>>beneficiary the first person to correctly predict his/her death.
>>Suppose this person dies (of a heart attack or, more violently, at the
>>hands of one of his officers) and the payoff is made. This country
>>could still have some sort of leadership, and they might get a little
>>ticked off. They start a war with us. Boom. There's your war.
>
>That's a poor analysis. You've implicitly assume that this "moderately
>Naziesque" regime can exist, in a world in which the "Assassination Poltics"
>idea is implemented. Quite to the contrary, it would have already taken down
>that government, so that there will be no "moderately Naziesque regime."
>
Mr. Bill: Things happen quickly in politics. No, not tax cuts (which
you seem *very* concerned with) and the like, but with new people and
regimes coming to power and all. It happens before the people know
it. In some countries, it happens so often that the people don't even
bother to pay attention to who their current leader is, because their
leaders seldom affect them anyways.
>If _your_ country became "moderately Naziesque", wouldn't you want to eliminate
>that government? Would you want to fight its war? Would you want to pay the
>taxes to afford that war? If not, then that "moderately Naziesque" regime is
>history.
>
>>government won't know who gets the payoff. If the people don't report
>>the payoff on their taxes, they breaking the law (and even worse,
>>making themselves look guilty), and the only way they're going to keep
>>the government from finding out is by not spending any of their money.
>
>Hardy har har! Hell, guy, there WON"T BE a government! No taxes either. Go
>back and re-read my essay, and THINK about it. Nobody who enforces for the
>government will be able to keep his job. Anybody who does the government's job
>will become the enemy of everyone else.
>
Mr. Bull: I must ask you this: have you fully considered a world
without government? Any twelfth-grade Economics student could tell
you that they wouldn't murder their government for money, because
without the government their would BE no money. Who controls the
money supply you intend to use? The Federal Reserve. They're the
ones that keep inflation down. If nobody's willing to work in
government and we have none, inflation will be rampant and the payoffs
will be worth less (if not worthless). You can't send gold by email.
Also, if nobody is willing to work in government, someone will
naturally decide that they will be the new ruler. They would throw
out the Constitution (because it states that their method of rising to
power is outdated) and not think twice about killing all who oppose.
This would definitely mean crippling our fabulous Internet in an
attempt to squelch opposition. And the mail system... your anonymous
mailing of floppy disks... you think that the mails would get any
FASTER under this system?
>Remember, it is easy to forget that while the term "assassination" is most
>commonly applied to killings of _high_ level government employees, I intend it
>to mean killings of people at all levels, most of whom have little or no
>protection.
>
It is also easy to forget that (sticking to my American Dictatorship
from above) such a dictator would surely be guarded 24/7. Do you
think that they would have forgotten that he's a prime target?
>> Does your organization have an
>>amnesty program, like the Hitman's Protection Program? Give 'em a new
>>name and face, send 'em off to Arkansas, and give 'em a nice house and
>>car? And a job with the organization?
>
>None of this would be needed. If they escaped the scene of the killing and were
>unidentified as of that time, it is unlikely they'd be caught.
>
>Remember, the Unabomber wasn't caught for 17+ years; why should you assume that
>somebody else equally careful can't do a similar thing?
>
>> HOW would the outcome be
>>anything different from what we've seen with so many assassinations?
>
>First, it would be very different. The reasons are numerous. FIrst, while you
>seem to think we've had "so many assassinations," I'm talking about THOUSANDS
>and maybe even tens of thousands. So many that resignations would come in a
>flood, depopulating the government.
>
Fact: anarchy = bad.
>I think there's a good likelihood that there will be people who think they are
>competent enough to NOT get caught. And many of them will be right. Further,
>even if they are caught, I think there will be enough jurors who are sympathetic
>with the goal (getting rid of government) that convictions will become
>increasingly rare.
>
These jurors will not be selected. It's called peremptory challenges
or something. And besides, if there's no government, there's no court
system. No public works system, no defense. Say France decides to
jump on the opportunity. They see a country, quite large, lots of
potential, but no organization. No defense. Easy target for
imperialism.
Without government, there would be no law enforcement. Looting would
be rampant, people would die left and right. Do you really want this?
People are not totally good. They can be swayed by profits (that's
your main idea). If there is no government, people will go crazy.
>>>>It also should not be forgotten that a foreign government could
>>>>decide to overthrow our government by donating millions of dollars
>>>>for the first to correctly "predict" the death of the President.
>>>>There's nothing quite like convincing us to kill our own
>>>>government, is there?
>>>
>>>I don't think we need a whole lot of convincing.
>
>>I would. I just guess I'm more human than you. Go figure.
>
>Apparently many people disagree with the "convincing" issue. And as for the
>"more human" angle, before you come to any firm conclusions about that you need
>to do a far more careful analysis of what my system would likely accomplish.
>
>>>In any case, what's wrong with
>>>the scenario you just described? Hey, if foreigners want to see one of the
>>>biggest causes of this country's problems dead, more power to them! (Just in
>>>case you think I'm playing favorites, I can't think of a political officeholder
>>>for the last 50 years or more who should be spared the axe. Probably a lot
>>>longer than that!)
I must mention that the same "causes of our country's problems" are
the same people who solve many of our problems. Do you want to worry
every day about keeping American currency steady? About regulating
trade? Do you want to repair the road outside your own house?
Without government, this is what you'd be doing.
>
>>Mr. Ball, it's one thing to wish a political official dead. It's
>>another thing to actually see it through to its completion. In
>>another post, you said that those of us who oppose your plan are
>>throwing away 250 years of Constitutional freedom, or something dumb
>>(er... sorry) like that. The Constitution was set up with the same
>>goals you have. It was written so that the people could overthrow the
>>government, but they just had to wait until every four years to do it.
>
>Everything operates faster today. It used to be that it probably took many
>weeks to get a letter from Georgia to New Hampshire. Today an email makes the
>journey in a few seconds. Overthrowing the government every four years may have
>made sense in 1783, but I contend we ought to speed up the process commensurate
>with modern technology.
>
Then write your congressman, asking to decrease terms of office.
Recycle the government more often. If enough people aggree with you
and send in letters, it just might happen. But just remember, nothing
is accomplished in a country where people have to go to the polls,
first thing every morning.
>>It's perfectly legal, it's called running for office and voting out
>>those who don't deserve to serve you.
>
>As I pointed out in another response, the Constitution merely specifies the form
>of government; it does not guarantee that there will be people found to fill
>those offices. "What if you gave an election and NOBODY came?"
>
Then our country would be in sorry shape, and I'd be glad that I don't
have any children yet.
>>You're just letting impatience
>>take over. Want a change? Did you vote in our nation's last election
>>(not only Presidential; ANY election)?
>
>I vote in every election.
>
Good. Would you kill the person you voted for?
>The system isn't working, get it? The people who are in office make up the
>rules to keep the system out of the control of the citizenry and in the control
>of the apparatchiks. When's the last time YOU voted for a Federal government
>tax increase? A Congressional pay increase? Hint: You've NEVER voted for
>these things, and if you let the Congress have its way, you never will. I think
>we need to "take the law into our own hands," and get rid of a political system
>that has been abused terribly.
>
If we voted for *every* action the government takes, we would be at
the polls 24/7. This would definitely decrease our productivity, and
increase the time lag for government actions. You must remember that
tax increases are for a purpose; namely, more government action (which
benefits EVERYBODY). Where do you work? Do your customers have to
vote when you get a pay increase? That's what you're saying we should
do.
>> Laws aside, you must remember that
>>people, truly *human* people, know when they have violated a basic
>>law. There are laws of *humanity* in addition to the laws of our
>>Nation.
>
>Have you determined whether or not the implementation of my system might
>actually IMPROVE society? Read it carefully. I don't ask you to accept
>anything blindly, but I think you need to realize that it is at least
>conceivable that it will solve numerous problems that heretofore haven't been
>considered solvable. Before you reject it as an idea, maybe you ought to look
>at it far more carefully.
>
Well, sir, that's it for this installment. Please do respond, but
don't bother emailing replies to me. Just put them where they belong,
in Usenet. Remember, Mr. Bill: in a debate, you don't convince your
opponent. You convince your audience.
Remember as well, that iff your system comes to life, the first person
I'll put a reward on is you. In the words of Abigail Williams in
Miller's THE CRUCIBLE: "Let *you* beware... think you to be so mighty
that the power of Hell may not turn your wits!? -- beware of it!"
Later...
-pdlw
__ _ _ _ _
___ _| | |_ _ _ ___ ___ ___ _ _| |_ ___ ___| |_ ___ ___ _____
| . | . | | | | | @ |_ -| -_| _| | | _| -_| _| |_| _| . | |
| _|___|_|_____| |___|___|_| \_/ _| |___|___|_|_|_|___|___|_|_|_|
|_|pd...@servtech.com/1024/12B8CED1/EA66A37351E5C1E4 49E827375267D3C3
Chance Harris
: jim...@pacifier.com (jimbell) wrote:: >>to come in. But if somebody is providing a framework for a
: >>thats murder to me. If they could convince me that they actually
: >>did not intend for any one to get killed as the result of a "prediction"
: >>(which I think would require more than just their word on it), then
: >>in this potnential juror's opinion, its only manslaughter.
: >My my, you certainly do love a rush to judgment, don't you?!?
If I believe, (beyond a reasonable doubt ... etc etc), that you provided
monetary incentive for a person to be dead, with the belief that doing
so would cause the death of the that person, then you are responsible
for the death of that person. If thats not murder, pick a different word;
I'll still feel better if you are in jail, and would do whatever I
legally could to put such a person in jail.
Now maybe it happens once, and somebody dies, and you, in shocked
disbelief discontintue this betting service, then fine, I, or somebody
on the jury will probably go for a stupidity plea. However, if you continue
to provide this service after noticing that people on the list "just happen"
to die, then you are just as instrumental in the deaths as the actual
hit men. Its not that complicated, and I don't see what the constitution
has to do with it.
: Now THIS is funny! The guy who is proposing the establishment of a hit-man free
: market, where people can contract for hits anonymously, accuses someone else of
: rushing to judgement! ROFL!!!!
Ya, I actually think its pretty funny too. I feel like a "sucker":
I actually enjoyed reading the original post, but wouldn't have responded
if I thought he was gonna go kooky on me. I thought he was actually
interested in examining a potential "paradox" of individual liberties,
not trying to set legal precedents that made hit men legal.
: >The fact that YOU are willing to throw away 220 years of constitutional
: >protections in order to vote for a guilty verdict on such flimsy evidence says
: >far more about YOU than the system I've described.
If I really 100 % believe that you are a murderer, and I don't think the
government abused its power to catch you, or to induce your crime, I'll
vote guilty. I don't think this really provides all that much information
about me.
The hypothetical evidence that you have is described sounds like enough
to me. Of course, in a trial there'd be a defense attorney, and I'd
listen to his arguments honestly. But he better do something besides
play word games with me - providing a hit-man agency, if not outright murder,
is something pretty close to it, even if you don't know the identity
of the customer or the contractor. I'd want that person in jail, and
I doubt that I'm alone.
: And it gets even better! He now asserts that his anonymous hit-man service is a
: fairer system than exsiting due process of law! A jury of one's peers is
: inferior to anonymous contracts for murder!
: > I'd say that you have
: >already disqualified yourself from any such jury: You haven't even explained
: >what evidence, other than the knowledge that somebody's running one of these
: >systems, would be necessary to get you to vote "guilty."
Yes, absolute knowledge that you are running a hit man agency, IMHO,
is enough to convict you of running a hit man agency. Maybe the techical
name of the crime would be "negligent manslaughter", but for our hypothetical
conversation, I'll just stick to "murder".
Juries don't have to explain anything. They just vote. If I get disqualified,
then I've still "watered" down the jury pool for the defense - they can
only disqualify so many people. And most people, regardless of their background
pr political ideology consider murder to be a crime.
: >BTW, you've also failed to explain how "authorities" are going to be able to
: >distinguish between a random killing and one which was motivated by collecting a
: >reward.
: >One more thing for you to ponder. If I were just an ordinary citizen,
: >unaffiliated with either the organization, the predictor, the defendant, or
: >anyone else, and I discoved your identity as a juror on such a case that (if a
: >conviction occurred) would have to have been unanimous, I would consider that
: >your decision to convict was clearly an intentional miscarriage of justice. At
: >that point, I would.
: Disclaimer:
: All views expressed are my own opinions, and not necessarily
: those of Intel Corporation.
Ya, me too, except I don't speak for Motorola.
------------------------------------------------
Politics is a conflict of interests masquerading
as a conflict of ideals.
- (poorly paraphrased?) Ambrose Bierce
------------------------------------------------
Chance Harris
#include<std_disclaimer.h>
Pablo Saratxaga
[plenty of stupidities deleted]
Do you really think what you wrote ?
The only point you have made is to prove yet again, that the United States of
North America is the place in world were the fools said the biggest foolishes.
Oh, BTW your "revolutionary" system isn't new at all, Maffia, Drugs cartels,
CIA, etc. use it daily, since years and years.
Your system is the worse thing that can be imagined, a system where the Justice
doesn't exist anymore, where courts and laws are bannished and where money
decides of the life and death of people.
Well, that's already the case in some way, many people are killed each year
because they oppose to money-powers. But that's illegal, and sometimes the
money can't save them.
> Actually, I believe it woudl be immoral to NOT use this system,
Oh, so you think it's very moral to assasinate somebody only because someone
promise a lot of money for doing it ?
> >Oh, come on. Elimination of WAR? How do you intend to eliminate war?
>
> It sounds like you haven't read the essay...carefully. Surprisingly enough,
> this is one of the outcomes of the system which is the LEAST challenged; I think
> most people who understand this system recognize that war would be impossible.
ha, ha ha hah ah.
Typically the point of view of a short minded USan that thinks that everybody
can be bought with lots of dollars. That's not the case ! There has allways
been, an will allways be, people who will fight for ideas, not for money.
> "Wars", at least large scale ones, occur because the leaders of one group of
> people force its citizens to go to war against another group. They accomplish
> this through propaganda, to make the war look "justified."
Yes. So what ? How would you erradicate wars ? You can only decide to not
attack (and only if you are the president or equivalent), but you can't
do anything if another country attacks yours. Your system won't help you
to defend your country, even worst, it can be used by attackers to incitate
your citizens (people so venal to use your system won't mind who promises the
money, they just will kill for money) to kill your chiefs, etc.
> I content that if the guilty leaders can be eliminated easily, nobody will want
> to go to war.
"Easily" ??? They take a lot of precautions, you know. Thay have body guards,
anti-atomic bunkers and so on. They also have intelligence agencies, a police
and an army. And surely much more money to pay than your hypotetical
organisation can afford.
You know CIA has tried during several years to kill leaders of several
countries. You think you will be able to do best than CIA ? Ridiculous.
> That's a poor analysis. You've implicitly assume that this "moderately
> Naziesque" regime can exist, in a world in which the "Assassination Poltics"
> idea is implemented. Quite to the contrary, it would have already taken down
> that government, so that there will be no "moderately Naziesque regime."
You are so wrong.... A world in which "Assassination Poltics" idea is
implemented is a world ruled by richs. If a (moderately or not) naziesque
movement has enough money _they_ will decide who to kill. They won't be taken
down, quite the contrary, they will be even much more powerful than if the
"Assassination Poltics" doesn't exist.
> If _your_ country became "moderately Naziesque", wouldn't you want to eliminate
> that government? Would you want to fight its war? Would you want to pay the
> taxes to afford that war? If not, then that "moderately Naziesque" regime is
> history.
You forget an important point. Governments have police, armies, inteligence
agencies, money, media control,...
Do you really think that if one persone doesn't like that governement he will
be able to eliminate it alone ?
Dictatorial governments _are_ defeated by their upset peoples, but this is a
long, painful, dangerous way, with lots of deaths, fear, destruction.
You're USan, so do you remember that your country was once ruled by so called
McCarthysm ? Do you remember that Black people have had to fight hard for their
rights ? Do you remember of Indians who were almost exterminated ?
> Hardy har har! Hell, guy, there WON"T BE a government! No taxes either. Go
> back and re-read my essay, and THINK about it. Nobody who enforces for the
> government will be able to keep his job. Anybody who does the government's job
> will become the enemy of everyone else.
You're wrong. People who have money will decide who to kill. There _will_ be
a government, their memeber will be those paying for assasination and murder.
There _will_ be taxes. When they will have complete control over the country,
thanks to the fear of people, they will said "those who won't pay will be
killed"
> Who is he going to get to fight on "his" side? If I was in "his" region of the
> country, and I was asked to fight HIS war, I'd probably decide that one too few
> government officials had died. You're going to have to explain how he could
> orchestrate a civil war.
You have seen too much Rambo movies. You know they are _movies_, in real life
a man alone can't destroy an entire army, go the president house, kill all
ministers, the president, his wife and dog.
Yes, presidents of USA get assasinated (J F Kennedy isn't the last one I think)
but that doesn't change the USA politic, and the murderers are caught.
> been functioning it pre-WWII Europe, the Jews of Germany (as well as any German
> citizen who didn't want war) and the citizens of the rest of Europe and
> America could have combined their money to purchase Hitler's death, and anybody
> who took his place who had similar goals.
You don't have, even remotely, a guess of the reasons that leaded to WW2.
It wasn't because of Hitler himself. It was a combination of lots of factors:
- the frustration of Germans and the deep economic crisis in their country
due to abusive behaviour of WW1 winers.
- German industry has pushed nazi party because their fear the communisn.
Because workers were in a so bad situation that they looked more and more
to a revolution. (there was indeed a the Weimar republic)
- Britain and USA though that Hitler will attack USSR first and that those
two will destroy each other.
- USA have its own problems and doesn't mind what happened in Europe.
The same goes for France, which doesn't react until it was too late.
Yes, killing Hitler would have changed a lot of things, but not so much.
The war would have happened even without him, because the German industry
needs a war.
> First, it would be very different. The reasons are numerous. FIrst, while you
> seem to think we've had "so many assassinations," I'm talking about THOUSANDS
> and maybe even tens of thousands. So many that resignations would come in a
> flood, depopulating the government.
If that happens will you be happy living in a Country where at each moment a
bomb can explode killing people and childrens that are ther, just walking.
A country where some car can arrive, its door opened and an M-16 or AK-47 will
throw fire an death ? A country where people can be killed for some few
dollars ? You're a Far-West nostalgic or what ?
And think also that if that arrive government will decrete martial laws, and
there _will_ be a civil war.
> The reason that assassinations (in particular, of low- and medium- level people)
> are so rare today is that killing is inherently a risky business, and it is
> extremely unlikely that _one_ person is sufficiently motivated to try it.
Not the only reason. Some people, like me, doesn't like to kill others, just
because we think that it isn't fear to do so.
> They didn't have to "be there" in Oklahoma city?
And they have been caught.
And there has been dozens of inocents killed, dozens of young childrens.
So that is what you _really_ want ? Horror and fear ?
> Have you determined whether or not the implementation of my system might
> actually IMPROVE society?
It WON'T.
--
Yours Truly,
Pablo Saratxaga PGP Key available, key ID: 0x8F0E4975
** "Congress shall make no law respecting an
** ** establishment of religion....or abridging
** ** the freedom of speech, or of the press"
** **
** THIS SIG IS WEARING A BLUE CYBER-RIBBON IN
** ** VEHEMENT PROTEST OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL
** ** 'NET CENSORSHIP BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
**........**............................................................
jimbell
>jim...@pacifier.com writes:
>>
>> The fact that YOU are willing to throw away 220 years of constitutional
>> protections in order to vote for a guilty verdict on such flimsy evidence says
>> far more about YOU than the system I've described. I'd say that you have
>> already disqualified yourself from any such jury: You haven't even explained
>> what evidence, other than the knowledge that somebody's running one of these
>> systems, would be necessary to get you to vote "guilty."
>>
>Mr. Bell,
> Perhaps our friend here is willing to shrug at 220
>years of judicial precedent.
And like I pointed out, he doesn't deserve to be on any jury, since he was
unable to explain what would have been necessary to get a conviction for murder.
He didn't evan say that there had to be a dead body. Assuming a dead body is
present, he failed to say what kind of evidence of a connection between that
dead body that the operators of the system would be necessary. This failure is
very telling.
>YOU are not only willing to, but
>ADVOCATING a system that would bring down 220 years of
>constitutional government.
The US Constitution specifies a form of government, but it cannot guarantee that
anybody will be found who is willing to man that government, to take those
offices specified. I'm in favor of setting up a system to to ensure that the
government will remain depopulated. That is NOT in any way in contravention to
the Constitution.
> Lincoln played with the Constitution to save the country,
It isn't clear that "saving the country" was a legitimate goal. "The Country"
would have remained, as two countries, even if he had been unsuccessful. I am
not trying to defend the Confederate states' actions, merely to point out that
Lincoln's actions likely exceeded his authority by a long shot.
> and the Court upheld it. I'll have to back
>a belief that your system is illegal.
But you haven't explained which law it violates. I think the best you can do is
to simply say that you don't _like_ it. I'm not saying that the underlying
killing of named people is legal, I'm saying that the remainder of the operation
(which is carefully isolated from knowledge of the killings) does not violate
any existing law. Despite the fact that I have been publicizing this idea for
over a year now, I have yet to see any more than a vague opinion such as yours.
I have seen NOBODY do a detailed legal analysis purporting to show that the
operation of such an organization is illegal.
Remember, the mere fact that you don't like something does NOT mean that it is
somehow automatically illegal.
jimbell
>I've been following this thread with much fascination, because it's the
>kind of stuff really good sci-fi books are made of...
I agree it would make excellent fiction. However, it would make an even better
_fact._. That's why I'm publicizing it.
>RECAP: Jim Bell postulates that with the advent of "electronic money", it
>would be possible to create a legal organization that would create a sort
>of "death lottery," where people could enter and win money if they
>correctly "predicticted" when someone would die. If we postulate that the
>only people who enter the game are people who are guilty of crimes against
>humanity, corruption, massive abuse of power, etc., it could be, in theory,
>a strong deterrent to those very crimes, because someone could bet money on
>a specific time of death, and then go out and assassinate that person, and
>collect the money - all completely anonymously.
>This is my understanding of the original post.
That's basically it; a very serious deterrent against abuse of power.
>>That position is misleading, because it ignores the fact that among the many
>>effects of this plan would be the elimination of war. I don't know whether you
>>would call forcibly sending people off to die in a war, "murder," but if you
>>don't you're a hypocrite. At that point, the question is, "which system would
>>kill more people"? You won't want to address this issue, but it's vital.
>The question is not "which system would kill more people?" The question
>is, rather, "is the system legitimate in spite of its increased
>efficiency?"
I see a problem with this claim. What, exactly, do you mean by "legitimate"?
I'm not just being nit-picky here. For example, there are well over 150
national governments; are they "legitimate" by your definition? (some of them
have killed thousands; others, millions.)
I'm not suggesting that I totally reject the concept of "legitimacy" in systems,
or governments, but I think you have to start out with a reasonably objective
standard so that the average person can agree (or at least disagree
intelligently) with your claims.
Is the _current_ "system" legitimate? Why or why not? To call a system
"legitimate," does that mean that it is somehow illegitimate to change it in
order to improve it?
See the problem? I think the term "legitimate" is way too subjective unless it
is far more precisely defined, and I don't see any way to define it better
without yet another disagreement as to the term.
>My response to this is a strong "No." A system that removes any possible
>involvement or repsonsibility for the murder of a human being, even a total
>bastard of a human being, carries its own consequences.
Remember, I didn't claim that the system I propose is perfect, by definition.
Bad things would still happen, occasionally. However, they might happen far
less often than the current system.
> At this point,
>high-level military officials suffer from this condition - they send units
>(not people, mind you - units) out to face other units and they use code
>words like "acceptable losses" and "friendly fire" to stand for how many of
>"our boys" will never go home again and code words like "enemy losses" for
>how many of "their boys" will never go home again and code words like
>"collateral damage" for how many civilians who were minding their own damn
>business got blown up in the latest string of bombs that got dropped on
>whatever "targets of opportunity" (a code word for "things we'd really like
>to blow up") were in their neighborhood.
But notice that wars are primarily a product of governments gone awry; not of
populations gone awry. My system would, I believe, eliminate this as a source
of war.
> Your system makes this kind of
>detached view of murder accessible to everyone - which disturbs me.
I am at least equally disturbed by the current political system.
>A war is a big fight someone stages but doesn't get involved in. Your
>system is essentially the same thing - just with mercenaries instead of
>conscripted soldiers.
I think you missed something there. It may be considered a "war", but it is
only a war in microcosm: One person against another. I operate under the
philosophy that if "war" is inevitable givens man's nature, the best kinds of
war that we can have are the smallest ones. In other words, don't allow people
to be dragged into war because they're forced to pay the taxes to support it, or
go fight it, or...
> To put $4 million dollars on someone's head - whether
>it is stated "for entertainment purposes only" or not - is no different
>than the Ayatollah Khomeni calling for the assassination of Salmon Rushdie.
On the other hand, if "Assassination Politics" were in place, you and I and a
few million other people could have each donated $1 to see Khomeini dead, which
would presumably have led him to be more careful about whose death he was
encouraging.
>When we start viewing people we don't like in terms of "how much money do I
>have to put in the 'death lottery' before someone offs him?" we are taking
>a mentality that greatly de-values life, views life in terms of units or
>utils of pleasure (for you economy types).
However, I am proposing this system to _reduce_ the amount of death, not
increase it. I propose it because I see it as the best, certain way to
eliminate war and a host of other political problems.
> Ultimately, where would this
>set-up go? Would it be used only for the huge war criminals? Or simply be
>restricted to the tyrants and dictators?
No, it would eliminate all governments, at least as we know them.
> Even if it were, who is to say
>another system wouldn't be set up by the tyrants and dictators to combat
>it?
Hypothesize how this might happen... Hint: If they were "tyrants and
dictators," then how would they survive in a world in which everybody else can
eliminate them quickly and easily.
> And all this aside, what would it do the mentality of the people
>involved in it? Would they begin evaluating people in terms of "Cash/Kill
>ratios?"
Do we really have a choice? Think about it. This system is technologically
possible; how would we avoid it? In my opinion, it has the possibility of doing
great good. It may, arguably, do some bad. Is there a way to know, for sure,
which is greater? Would you reject an improvement?
>I don't mind admitting I find this an extremely disturbing idea.
>Fascinating, yes, but distrubing nonetheless.
I've pondered it for over a year. I think that if you consider it as long as
I have, objectively, you'll conclude that we are going to adopt this system,
like it or not. And it will dramatically improve our society, as odd as that
conclusion will look to you right now.
Jim Bell
jim...@pacifier.com
jimbell
>I've been following the Assassination Politics discussion for some time.
>I have not yet seen a mention of the key relevant legal concept:
>Insurable Interest.
>The concept exists in US law. I suspect it does in most countries.
>IANAL, but no-one else seems to have mentioned it.
>The idea is that you can't take out a life insurance policy on just
>anyone -- nor make any other bet against just anyone's life. Who exactly
>you can varies, though AFAIK it always includes one's spouse. (Perhaps a
>bad idea, since women murdering their husbands is too common, but there
>it is)
>And that is the concept the Assassination Politics would run afoul of
>legally. The govt doesn't have to prove the organizer was accessory to
>murder, before or after the fact. Just that they have no insurable
>interest in the target.
For a few reasons, I hesitate to term Assassination Politics as some sort of
insurance scheme, and yours is one of the reasons why. Insurance is already
heavily regulated; calling it "insurance" might simply open the door to
regulation I don't want.
However, remember that nobody will know who the recipient of the reward is
(except he, himself) so there is no way to prove that he (or she?) has no
"insurable interest." At best, you can claim that the rewarding organization
cannot, itself, know that the recipient has "no insurable interest."
Even so, keep in mind that the location of that predictor is likewise unknown,
so it isn't clear that the law of any particular country is applicable.
Somebody in Australia might predict the death of somebody in Iowa, and I can't
see how this could be deemed to violate a law in Iowa, especially if we don't
know where he's from.
>Whether Assassination Politics could succeed practically is another
>question.
Maybe I'm biased, but I think it can... And if I can convince a substantial
fraction of the population that it'll work, at that point they'll expect the
politicians to toe the line ever more precisely, which will become a
self-fulfilling prophecy.
Phil Edwards
which I made in my original post and which he failed, IMHO, to answer.
Perhaps I can make myself clearer this time. (The newsgroup list is JB's
- last time I only posted to the anarchism & libertarian groups).
Assassination politics, strong version:
"it's OK for us ("we, the people") to kill... whoever, really... because
by doing so we'd be preventing greater loss of life." (my paraphrase)
I don't believe it's possible to make this calculation with any kind of
certainty in any but the most extreme circumstances (the attempted
assassination of A. Hitler in 1944 might have had such a result - and I
say *might*). That being the case, I go with moral prohibitions against
killing in particular and "the end justifying the means" in general.
Assassination politics, slightly weaker version:
> Bernard Goetz justified shooting four people on the fact he was being
> robbed. Many people agreed with his actions. <...> The question is,
> "are taxes theft?" Libertarians believe they are, indeed, theft.
(a) Not all libertarians hold the said view; there is, as I pointed out
in my original post, such a thing as a libertarian socialist. Hey,
there's even a few of 'em posting to this group. Big world out there.
(b) Presumably we can all agree that personal liberty is fundamental. The
question is whether that includes (or implies) the right to continue
breathing. I tend to think it does.
The "taxation deserves death" argument basically implies that *my* right
to my property is worth more than *your* right to your life. This is
hardly libertarian at all IMHO - capitalist individualism with a
libertarian twist, perhaps. Is this your idea of anarchism?
Assassination politics, downright scary version:
"The way it's (logically) developed - where avoiding getting a price on
your head depends on *popularity* - is horrific."
That's what I said and that's what I meant. At first reading I took JB's
reply - "Can you think of a better way to do it?" - for a petulant taunt
from someone running short of arguments - my mistake. JB does, however,
seem to have missed the point that I've got no interest in finding a
"better way to do it", if by this we mean running a virtual lynch mob
such as JB proposes. Don't want to do it, hope to hell nobody ever does
do it, believe it's a Bad Idea. (Incidentally, could I just point out
that most dictators - which is where all this started - have been hugely
popular?)
>the net number of killings will actually DECREASE due to the operation of this system
(a) Nice calculation (see above).
(b) Yeah, but this way we *all* get to pull the trigger.
That second amendment of yours has a lot to answer for...
--
Phil Edwards new...@dircon.co.uk
(personal capacity) "Don't believe everything that you breathe"
Phil Edwards
> That's odd. Draft boards during the Vietnam war operated with the
> knowledge that their draftees might die. Did these people sleep well
> at night? Some did, apparently.
Death camp guards (some of them) also slept well. I dare say Cosa Nostra
could boast a similarly low rate of insomnia. You *can* kill or take
responsibility for killing without feeling guilt, but (FFS) do you think
it's a good idea? Apparently JB does.
> >I don't know any AIDS victims who are homicidal. Most of the ones I
> > know are merely trying to prolong their lives as long as possible, >
>and to enjoy themselves.
>
> Perhaps they think they can do nothing else?
Something really constructive like killing somebody? "What shall I do
with my last remaining months? I know, I'll get some blood on my hands!"
Jeez.
> >Listen, if the close friends and family of someone take out a life
> >insurance policy under which they will only benefit if their
> >friend/family member dies on a specific day, and they can collect
> >guilt-free, something is terribly wrong with the human race.
> Something is ALREADY "terribly wrong with the human race." We have
> oppression, we have wars, we have authoritarian governments, we have
> taxes. I will get rid of all four, and more...
This is one of JB's more wildly irrelevant responses, of course. What I
like about it is the last sentence: "I will". Thought of cross-posting to
alt.prophecies.nostradamus?
--
Phil Edwards new...@dircon.co.uk
"It helps you find your way around in any English town"
Preston D. L. Wilson
wrote:
>But you haven't explained which law it violates. I think the best you can do is
>to simply say that you don't _like_ it. I'm not saying that the underlying
>killing of named people is legal, I'm saying that the remainder of the operation
>(which is carefully isolated from knowledge of the killings) does not violate
>any existing law. Despite the fact that I have been publicizing this idea for
>over a year now, I have yet to see any more than a vague opinion such as yours.
>I have seen NOBODY do a detailed legal analysis purporting to show that the
>operation of such an organization is illegal.
>
>somehow automatically illegal.
>
I'm no lawyer. I cannot cite any specific case law as to why you may
or may not be found guilty. Your system takes great pains to make
sure that it's untouchable by the laws of man. But this doesn't
change the fact that your system violates the laws of *mankind.* It
oversteps the boundaries set forth by any and all religious leaders,
which were set forth in the name of common sense. "Thou shalt have no
other God before me." Mr. Bill here is doing his best to become God.
("I'm not a supreme deity; I just play one on TV.") "Love thy
neighbor as thyself." "Thou shalt not kill." Bill slays... er...
says that he isn't killing; God sees things a little differently. In
the words of Rebecca Nurse in Miller's THE CRUCIBLE "There is another
judgement waits us all..."
It's out of your realm, Mr. Bill. You're playing with things you
don't understand. Be good, or I'll sick some of those Scientology
guys on you.
-pdlw (aren't I just the wealth of quotes today!)
escam...@world.std.com
Two bad answers and a good answer.
> For a few reasons, I hesitate to term Assassination Politics as some sort of
> insurance scheme, and yours is one of the reasons why. Insurance is already
> heavily regulated; calling it "insurance" might simply open the door to
> regulation I don't want.
That's a bad answer. You call it what you want, the govt will call it
what it wants, whose definition wins in court?
> However, remember that nobody will know who the recipient of the reward is
> (except he, himself) so there is no way to prove that he (or she?) has no
> "insurable interest." At best, you can claim that the rewarding organization
> cannot, itself, know that the recipient has "no insurable interest."
They would likely go after the organizer. Which may be mangling the
insurance definition a bit, but ask Jake Baker if the govt doesn't throw
away the rulebook when it wants.
> Even so, keep in mind that the location of that predictor is likewise unknown,
> so it isn't clear that the law of any particular country is applicable.
> Somebody in Australia might predict the death of somebody in Iowa, and I can't
> see how this could be deemed to violate a law in Iowa, especially if we don't
> know where he's from.
That's actually a good answer. "regulatory arbitrage".
Don't forget that national borders are not absolute defenses against
arrest. Ask Mexico and Panama especially how much the US respects their
borders.
However, now that I think about it (and now that I see you seem to have
fallen in love with the system), I feel the major problem is this:
The masses' perception is not generally a very good guide to the
important issues. Most people are stupid and myopic. On any subject,
they believe the first thing they hear, especially if it's repeated over
and over, and especially if it appeals to their prejudices. They analyze
nothing.
For instance, as you may have noticed from the flamage, the general
Usenet public perceives AP as bad (Ask Black Unicorn if you don't
believe me :) ) If the public in general is right, then you're wrong
because they think you are; if the public in general is wrong, then
you're wrong because you need the public to be right and it isn't.
In much the same way well-funded advertising wins votes, well-funded
advertising would make this system behave as The Powers That Be want it
to. It'd be different, but it'd still be hegemony.
I believe you mentioned assassinating Saddam Hussein. He has been a bad
guy for a long time, but I doubt you (or most people) would have
considered him as an example before the Gulf War propaganda started
coming out. (prob. true propaganda, but manipulation all the same)
So when you figure how this system would work, don't forget powerful,
well-funded propaganda machines pointing death at those who make waves.
It's worth noting that the fastest way to get an AP price on your head
would be to innovate, especially politically.
jimbell
>As far as I can tell, this would be classified as a betting pool
>and would not in fact be legal.
In which jurisdiction would it not be legal? Remember, it'll be based on
communication over the Internet, by unlocated and unidentified people.
jimbell
Martijn Berlage
First, everybody has been yelling about being liable for murder and so
on, but what you are proposing here, can be done with a lot of other
subjects. The outcome of the world chamionship of <name any sport you
want> People could indicate what they're willing to pay for a certain
outcome to happen, and (other) people can make predictions on those
outcomes, and collect their 'price'. Does that make the organisation
liable for any bribery going on in the competition? I don't think so.
But I do think that the organisation will be liable for running an
illegal gambling operation.
If anybody would start such an operation the way you suggested; (taken
from part 10)
>Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that EVERYONE would be
>identified. The "donors" to the system would remain perfectly anonymous,
>and the "guessers" would likewise be perfectly anonymous, but the
>organization itself would be made up of real people, who have published
>addresses, who have simply decided that they have had enough of the current
>system and are going to participate in a PERFECTLY LEGAL enterprise by the
>laws of the country, and just DARE the government to try to stop them.
--snip--
>Prosecute the participants? On what charge? "Conspiracy to commit
>gambling"? Which prosecutor would risk appearing to be impeding the
>progress of a useful system? At that point, the organization's members will
>just be publicly exercising their first-amendment rights. Which judge would
>take the case? Now THEY'RE on the spot, THEY have to decide what to do. I
>contend that in an election year, before the election, there would be mass
>resignations from Congress, or members deciding "it's just not fun anymore"
>and decline to return even if re-elected, as well as the complete loss of
>whatever residual confidence the public has in the government.
Yes, I _do_ think the org. will be prosecuted for running an illegal
gambling operation. If that org puts up a server somewhere to run this
game on, why do you think that server won't be impounded and shut down
the same day?
Don't mistake the power of those in charge _now_, they will do
_anything_ to stay in charge. If the possible implications of such an
enterprise are clear to them, and they are now, they won't hesitate to
shut it down, before this spreads. Therefore, I don't think this game
will last for a day.
Martijn
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Ber...@il.ft.hse.nl PGP key on request |
| "Not a man to mince words. People, yes. But not words." |
| -- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods) |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
Miradus
>I don't believe it's possible to make this calculation with any kind of
>certainty in any but the most extreme circumstances (the attempted
>assassination of A. Hitler in 1944 might have had such a result - and I
>say *might*). That being the case, I go with moral prohibitions against
>killing in particular and "the end justifying the means" in general.
That's a hard call to make. For example, many of Hitler's more
military minded disciples were opposed to the push into Russia, and
some of them were behind the attempt to kill Hitler. (The bomb
beneath the table)
If this bomb had succeeded, you could argue that Germany might not
have sapped its strength by entering Russia in winter and concentrated
it's efforts on pushing back the allies on their Western front.
Conceivably, they could have taken England and when Japan entered the
war, the combined Axis powers could have threatened American soil.
Scary, huh?
This is all just farting in the wind considering we could argue on it
until blue in the face. Debating this topic would be a lot of fun
over coffee and biscotti or beer and pretzels but in this format we
are just INVITING ourselves to be flamed.
Miradus
jimbell
>jim...@pacifier.com (jimbell) wrote:
>>cha...@ae.sps.mot.com (Chance Harris) wrote:
>>>jimbell (jim...@pacifier.com) wrote:
>>>to come in. But if somebody is providing a framework for a
>>>hit-man free market, I don't care what kind of word games you play,
>>>thats murder to me. If they could convince me that they actually
>>>did not intend for any one to get killed as the result of a "prediction"
>>>(which I think would require more than just their word on it), then
>>>in this potnential juror's opinion, its only manslaughter.
>>My my, you certainly do love a rush to judgment, don't you?!?
>Now THIS is funny! The guy who is proposing the establishment of a hit-man free
>market, where people can contract for hits anonymously, accuses someone else of
>rushing to judgement! ROFL!!!!
>>The fact that YOU are willing to throw away 220 years of constitutional
>>protections in order to vote for a guilty verdict on such flimsy evidence says
>>far more about YOU than the system I've described.
>And it gets even better! He now asserts that his anonymous hit-man service is a
>fairer system than exsiting due process of law! A jury of one's peers is
>inferior to anonymous contracts for murder!
Unfortunately, your logic is poor. The problem is not with the jury, per se,
but the fact that in order to get a jury to decide a case, it is _first_
necessary that the case be brought at all. This requires a prosecutor, who is
by definition a biased person and is employed by government.
What do you think would have happened to those cops that beat Rodney King if
there hadn't been that camcorder going? Hint: NOTHING! And King would have
been falsely charged, convicted on the word of 30 perjuring cops, and locked in
jail for a few years on false "resisting arrest" charges.
So you see, the problem is not the jury's ability to come to the correct
conclusion; the problem is the serious doubt that charges against government
employees will generally make it to court at all. Care to try again?
>> I'd say that you have
>>already disqualified yourself from any such jury: You haven't even explained
>>what evidence, other than the knowledge that somebody's running one of these
>>systems, would be necessary to get you to vote "guilty."
>>BTW, you've also failed to explain how "authorities" are going to be able to
>>distinguish between a random killing and one which was motivated by collecting a
>>reward.
>East to set you up for a sting, however. The police send in a hit contract,
>with payment, for "Citizen X". They then fake Citizen X's death, complete with
>news stories and a fake funeral. Your hit man service pays off. Bingo, they
>would seem to have all the evidence they need against you for:
Wouldn't work. Remember, if it's fake there is no murder. Secondly, the cops
can't prove that the organization knew that it was murder, because it wouldn't
know as a normal function of its operation. And if it's fake then it's fraud,
and the cops are guilty of a crime. It's called "obtaining evidence
illegally."
> 1) conspiracy to committ murder
You need to read the essay much more carefully. Nobody will "conspire" with
anybody to do any illegal act. Each person will be unknown to the others, and
none will learn of any guilt by any other party. None will learn that any crime
has been comitted, except possibly by reading the newspaper, etc.
> 2) running a criminal enterprise
What's your definition of "a criminal enterprise"? Since the organization pays
off regardless of whether a crime has been committed, it doesn't sound like "a
criminal enterprise." If anything, it sounds like an enterprise that
studiously avoids knowing whether or not crimes have been committed.
>>One more thing for you to ponder. If I were just an ordinary citizen,
>>unaffiliated with either the organization, the predictor, the defendant, or
>>anyone else, and I discoved your identity as a juror on such a case that (if a
>>conviction occurred) would have to have been unanimous, I would consider that
>>your decision to convict was clearly an intentional miscarriage of justice. At
>>that point, I would.
>>1. Publicize your name to the world, anonymously, explaining what you did.
>>2. Put up a hefty donation naming you. I assume numerous other people would
>>be inclined to do the same.
>Ah, but this works both ways, doesn't it?
No, it doesn't, as I'll explain in a moment.
>Consider if the government wants to get rid of YOU. Government Official Z sends
>in an anonymous hit contract on YOU, along with $1M in digital cash. After you
>get murdered, presumably your secretary will be able to process the transactions
>to payoff.
Question: where does the government get this money? Possible answer: Stolen
from taxpayers.
Question: What do those taxpayers do when money is stolen from them? Probable
answer: "Predict" the tax collector to death.
Question: So, I ask again, how does "Government Official Z" dare risk getting
that money?
Answer: He doesn't.
>Your proposed system is therefore self-terminating (literally).
I think my explanation is more logical than yours.
>Of course, you would put your own name on the list, right? Anything else would
>be unethical, right?
Are you getting desperate?
>Then again, if you don't, the government could just setup it's own anonymous
>hitman service--to compete with yours--and put your name on their list with a
>$1M bounty. That might be too much bother, though--much easier to visit you in
>the middle of the night and put a bullet in your head.
Again, where would they get the money? Hint: Let's assume that stealing $10K
in taxes is worthy of a death penalty. That $1 million you grandly tout is
worth 100 death penalties with my system. You need to explain why these
government people would risk it. You also need to explain how the government is
going to continue to exist under these conditions.
Jim Bell
jim...@pacifier.com
jimbell
>: >My my, you certainly do love a rush to judgment, don't you?!?
>If I believe, (beyond a reasonable doubt ... etc etc), that you provided
>monetary incentive for a person to be dead, with the belief that doing
>so would cause the death of the that person, then you are responsible
>for the death of that person. If thats not murder, pick a different word;
>I'll still feel better if you are in jail, and would do whatever I
>legally could to put such a person in jail.
No, you have already admitted that not only would you have done something
LEGALLY, but in fact you would do something ILLEGALLY! You admitted that you
would vote "guilty" with no evidence of any relationship whatsoever between the
operators of this organization and a death.
>Now maybe it happens once, and somebody dies, and you, in shocked
>disbelief discontintue this betting service, then fine, I, or somebody
>on the jury will probably go for a stupidity plea. However, if you continue
>to provide this service after noticing that people on the list "just happen"
>to die, then you are just as instrumental in the deaths as the actual
>hit men. Its not that complicated, and I don't see what the constitution
>has to do with it.
Lots of government-supporting thugs don't see what the constitution has to do
with anything.
>: Now THIS is funny! The guy who is proposing the establishment of a hit-man free
>: market, where people can contract for hits anonymously, accuses someone else of
>: rushing to judgement! ROFL!!!!
>Ya, I actually think its pretty funny too. I feel like a "sucker":
>I actually enjoyed reading the original post, but wouldn't have responded
>if I thought he was gonna go kooky on me.
No, quite the contrary: It is YOU who have "gone kooky." You've admitted being
willing to violate your oath as a juror and convict somebody on objectively
inadequate evidence, based solely on a whim. I'd say that's pretty "kooky."
And BTW, you didn't respond to my previous commentary to you, in which I shot
holes in your claims.
> I thought he was actually
>interested in examining a potential "paradox" of individual liberties,
What "paradox" are you talking about?
>not trying to set legal precedents that made hit men legal.
The term "legal" merely means (more or less) approved-of by government. Since
the people primarily targeted by this system will be government employees, it is
really difficult to see that they will ever admit that any system which ends up
targeting them will be "legal."
Also, you keep forgetting that even if the actions of one particular person are
arguably illegal, that doesn't mean that the actions of others are as well.
You're just hoping that this "minor" issue will be ignored; I'm focussing a
spotlight on it.
>: >The fact that YOU are willing to throw away 220 years of constitutional
>: >protections in order to vote for a guilty verdict on such flimsy evidence says
>: >far more about YOU than the system I've described.
>If I really 100 % believe that you are a murderer, and I don't think the
>government abused its power to catch you, or to induce your crime, I'll
>vote guilty. I don't think this really provides all that much information
>about me.
Enough to reject you as a juror, it does! It's a blatant admission of bias,
and would be treated as such.
>The hypothetical evidence that you have is described sounds like enough
>to me.
To a thug, being sneered at is enough to "justify" his beating up somebody. You
were saying?
> Of course, in a trial there'd be a defense attorney, and I'd
>listen to his arguments honestly.
How does one NOT "listen honestly"?!? You're hilarious!
>But he better do something besides
>play word games with me - providing a hit-man agency, if not outright murder,
>is something pretty close to it, even if you don't know the identity
>of the customer or the contractor. I'd want that person in jail, and
>I doubt that I'm alone.
You seem to have forgotten that the burden of proof is entirely on the
prosecution in cases like this. Yet another reason you'd never make it onto the
jury.
>: > I'd say that you have
>: >already disqualified yourself from any such jury: You haven't even explained
>: >what evidence, other than the knowledge that somebody's running one of these
>: >systems, would be necessary to get you to vote "guilty."
>Yes, absolute knowledge that you are running a hit man agency, IMHO,
>is enough to convict you of running a hit man agency.
What, exactly, is a "hit man agency"? How can you prove it? (You won't be able
to, BTW. But then again, your standards of "proof" are so low...)
>Maybe the techical
>name of the crime would be "negligent manslaughter", but for our hypothetical
>conversation, I'll just stick to "murder".
I'm sure glad to see you repeatedly verify that your loyalty to the facts is
nil.
>Juries don't have to explain anything. They just vote. If I get disqualified,
>then I've still "watered" down the jury pool for the defense - they can
>only disqualify so many people
I see your knowledge of law is next to zero. Peremptory challenges (the ones
where cause needn't be given) are often limited. Challenges for cause (and
rejecting you would definitely be a "for-cause" rejection!) are, I believe,
unlimited.
>. And most people, regardless of their background
>pr political ideology consider murder to be a crime.
That's a circular argument. "Murder", by definition, is a crime. but you
called it murder, not me.
>: >BTW, you've also failed to explain how "authorities" are going to be able to
>: >distinguish between a random killing and one which was motivated by collecting a
>: >reward.
You didn't respond to this.
>: >One more thing for you to ponder. If I were just an ordinary citizen,
>: >unaffiliated with either the organization, the predictor, the defendant, or
>: >anyone else, and I discoved your identity as a juror on such a case that (if a
>: >conviction occurred) would have to have been unanimous, I would consider that
>: >your decision to convict was clearly an intentional miscarriage of justice. At
>: >that point, I would.
You didn't respond to this, either.
Got anything better than that?
Malcolm McMahon
On 22 Apr 1996 15:43:20 GMT, smokes...@valleynet.com (Benjamin)
wrote:
>As far as I can tell, this would be classified as a betting pool
>and would not in fact be legal.
And, if so, how long do you imagine it would continue to be legal?
---------------------------------+----------------------------------
I was born weird: This terrible | Like Pavlov's dogs we are trained
compulsion to behave normally is | to salivate at the sound of the
the result of childhood trauma. | liberty bell.
---------------------------------+----------------------------------
Malcolm
jimbell
Ber...@il.ft.hse.nl (Martijn Berlage) wrote:
>In response to Jim Bell:
>First, everybody has been yelling about being liable for murder and so
>on, but what you are proposing here, can be done with a lot of other
>subjects. The outcome of the world chamionship of <name any sport you
>want> People could indicate what they're willing to pay for a certain
>outcome to happen, and (other) people can make predictions on those
>outcomes, and collect their 'price'. Does that make the organisation
>liable for any bribery going on in the competition? I don't think so.
>But I do think that the organisation will be liable for running an
>illegal gambling operation.
Only if the organization operates in a country in which gambling is illegal. In
many countries, it is not.
>>Prosecute the participants? On what charge? "Conspiracy to commit
>>gambling"? Which prosecutor would risk appearing to be impeding the
>>progress of a useful system? At that point, the organization's members will
>>just be publicly exercising their first-amendment rights. Which judge would
>>take the case? Now THEY'RE on the spot, THEY have to decide what to do. I
>>contend that in an election year, before the election, there would be mass
>>resignations from Congress, or members deciding "it's just not fun anymore"
>>and decline to return even if re-elected, as well as the complete loss of
>>whatever residual confidence the public has in the government.
>Yes, I _do_ think the org. will be prosecuted for running an illegal
>gambling operation. If that org puts up a server somewhere to run this
>game on, why do you think that server won't be impounded and shut down
>the same day?
Where are you thinking that such a thing would happen?
>Don't mistake the power of those in charge _now_, they will do
>_anything_ to stay in charge. \
You may be right. But if you're right, it doesn't really matter if what I
propose is really illegal or not.
>If the possible implications of such an
>enterprise are clear to them, and they are now, they won't hesitate to
>shut it down, before this spreads. Therefore, I don't think this game
>will last for a day.
We shall see...
.
.
.
.
.
jimbell
mir...@ionet.net (Miradus) wrote:
>Phil Edwards <new...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>I don't believe it's possible to make this calculation with any kind of
>>certainty in any but the most extreme circumstances (the attempted
>>assassination of A. Hitler in 1944 might have had such a result - and I
>>say *might*). That being the case, I go with moral prohibitions against
>>killing in particular and "the end justifying the means" in general.
> That's a hard call to make. For example, many of Hitler's more
>military minded disciples were opposed to the push into Russia, and
>some of them were behind the attempt to kill Hitler. (The bomb
>beneath the table)
> If this bomb had succeeded, you could argue that Germany might not
>have sapped its strength by entering Russia in winter and concentrated
>it's efforts on pushing back the allies on their Western front.
>Conceivably, they could have taken England and when Japan entered the
>war, the combined Axis powers could have threatened American soil.
I think you've messed up on the timeline. Germany invaded Russia in 1940, I
think, but the bomb attempt on Hitler's life was 1944 as mentioned above.
That aside, I think it would be misguided to reject the use of assassination
(both of leaders and lower-level people) as a cure for governmental problems.
While it is always possible to hypothesize (as you did above) that a particular
killing at a particular time could have some unintended consequences, over the
long term I think it would weaken and probably eliminate government. This would
lead to the elimination of the "war problem."
bren...@richmond.infi.net
In <4lk1br$p...@news.pacifier.com>, jim...@pacifier.com (jimbell) writes:
>bren...@richmond.infi.net wrote:
>
>
>>I've been following this thread with much fascination, because it's the
>>kind of stuff really good sci-fi books are made of...
>
>I agree it would make excellent fiction. However, it would make an even better
>_fact._. That's why I'm publicizing it.
I think it would be a nightmarish fact for the same reason it would make
excellent fiction. But more on that in a moment.
>>RECAP: Jim Bell postulates that with the advent of "electronic money", it
>>would be possible to create a legal organization that would create a sort
>>of "death lottery," where people could enter and win money if they
>>correctly "predicticted" when someone would die. If we postulate that the
>>only people who enter the game are people who are guilty of crimes against
>>humanity, corruption, massive abuse of power, etc., it could be, in theory,
>>a strong deterrent to those very crimes, because someone could bet money on
>>a specific time of death, and then go out and assassinate that person, and
>>collect the money - all completely anonymously.
>
>>This is my understanding of the original post.
>
>That's basically it; a very serious deterrent against abuse of power.
While I agree it's a serious deterrent against current abuse of power, I
believe it sets a precedent for an abuse of power that is just as great.
>>>That position is misleading, because it ignores the fact that among the many
>>>effects of this plan would be the elimination of war. I don't know whether you
>>>would call forcibly sending people off to die in a war, "murder," but if you
>>>don't you're a hypocrite. At that point, the question is, "which system would
>>>kill more people"? You won't want to address this issue, but it's vital.
>
>>The question is not "which system would kill more people?" The question
>>is, rather, "is the system legitimate in spite of its increased
>>efficiency?"
>
>I see a problem with this claim. What, exactly, do you mean by "legitimate"?
>I'm not just being nit-picky here. For example, there are well over 150
>national governments; are they "legitimate" by your definition? (some of them
>have killed thousands; others, millions.)
No, they are NOT legitimate. I am an anarchist. I accept the legitimacy
of NO system that exists through coercion. Groups and "institutions", if
you want to use the term, are legitimate only when its members are members
because they made the decision to be a part of the group. In other words,
the only legitimate "organization" is the voluntary and mutually accepted
association of individuals.
>I'm not suggesting that I totally reject the concept of "legitimacy" in systems,
>or governments, but I think you have to start out with a reasonably objective
>standard so that the average person can agree (or at least disagree
>intelligently) with your claims.
A legitimate system is one that is voluntary and non-coercive.
>Is the _current_ "system" legitimate? Why or why not? To call a system
>"legitimate," does that mean that it is somehow illegitimate to change it in
>order to improve it?
The current system is not legitimate because it uses coercion to force
people into obediance. It is far from illegitimate to change it to improve
the way things are, in fact, it think it's absolutely necessary to do so.
I don't think this neccessarily means your idea is legitimate... but more
on that later.
>See the problem? I think the term "legitimate" is way too subjective unless it
>is far more precisely defined, and I don't see any way to define it better
>without yet another disagreement as to the term.
My definition: coercive systems are not legitimate. This may need more
defining, refining and revision as our debate rages on, but for the moment
this will suffice.
>>My response to this is a strong "No." A system that removes any possible
>>involvement or repsonsibility for the murder of a human being, even a total
>>bastard of a human being, carries its own consequences.
>
>Remember, I didn't claim that the system I propose is perfect, by definition.
>Bad things would still happen, occasionally. However, they might happen far
>less often than the current system.
Two things:
1. I don't think the argument that "Assassination Politics would be less
bad than the current situation" is the same as "Assassination Politics is a
good idea." While you may be right (at the moment I have not been
convinced that Assassination Politics won't ultimately turn into an
incredibly oppressive version of "lynching for dollars") that the current
system is WORSE I don't think that Assassination Politics will create a
society that is BETTER ENOUGH to justify what it does.
2. I don't think the idea that "bad things MIGHT happen far less often
than in the current system" is the same as "bad things WILL happen far less
often than in the current system." Remember that most governments are
created at least in part with some ethical and "noble" purposes in mind. I
defy you to show me one government that did not eventually become rife with
corruption and power-hungry leeches. The US is a very young country in
comparison to many, many others and it shows more corruption up front than
any other "democratic" country I can think of.
Remember that in your system there will still be people in positions of
power where your game is concerned. Suppose someone maintaining these
lists decided they didn't approve of the choice that a bunch of people put
down for assasination, and changed the name to someone they didn't like?
Or suppose an ultra-conservative right-wing Christian group raised an
unGodly (pun intended) sum of money to assassinate a well-known athiest
philosopher? The fact is that until people can think for themselves (which
is not the instinctual reaction in a government-dominated society), herd
instincts will allow unscrupulous manipulators to lead a whole lot of
people by the nose, and in the system you have proposed I see a large
number of "Assassination Political Action Committees" springing up (because
it's so much more EFFECIENT to pool your money) and your stated intent
(power to the people) is corrupted (power to the special interest group.)
But even ASIDE from that, my original complaint that your system removes
any of the accountability for a human being's death still stands. I feel
this is the soul-killer. If someone can vote for a death and put up
money for it in your way, they don't actually have to take any
responsibility for what they do. At least the anarchists who practices
propaganda by the deed, when caught, went to their deaths fully accepting
what they did and never shirked from it. Emile Henry (a historical figure
I find fascinating, I sort of have a love/hate relationship with his ideals
and actions) threw a bomb into a crowded French cafe, simply because the
people who were sitting in there were "bourgeoise." He was an anarchist
reacting against a recent rash of arrests of entire families who were
suspected anarchists, but he was attacking people who had no idea what was
going on... when he was caught, he did not deny what he did, he did not
apologize for what he did, and when he went to his death defiantly shouting
"Long Live Anarchy!" before he was hung. He accepted the responsibility
for what he did (I don't like what he did, but I admire how he dealt with
its consequences) and did not back down.
Assassination Politics makes life and death too easy and meaningless. No
guilt is required, because no one will ever find out who you are. No
attachment is required, because you don't have to face the families, the
victim him/herself, you just donate your money and go away. Callous.
Divorcing the violence from the act is something that seems so incredibly
alien and repugnant to me that I can't find the words to eplain it. I
admit this is not the most rational of arguments, and I suppose my strong
feelings against it negate a dispassionate argument, but I can't argue
dispassionately about people choosing a death lottery to get rid of people
they don't like because it's easier.
>> At this point,
>>high-level military officials suffer from this condition - they send units
>>(not people, mind you - units) out to face other units and they use code
>>words like "acceptable losses" and "friendly fire" to stand for how many of
>>"our boys" will never go home again and code words like "enemy losses" for
>>how many of "their boys" will never go home again and code words like
>>"collateral damage" for how many civilians who were minding their own damn
>>business got blown up in the latest string of bombs that got dropped on
>>whatever "targets of opportunity" (a code word for "things we'd really like
>>to blow up") were in their neighborhood.
>
>But notice that wars are primarily a product of governments gone awry; not of
>populations gone awry. My system would, I believe, eliminate this as a source
>of war.
Throw your system into a society that is used to government and it will
fall prey to the same traps. Governments start wars, yes, but people allow
them to continue. And understand that when I spoke of the detachment
high-level military officials feel, I meant that they felt this because
they were removed from the actual combat itself - not because they were
members of a government. This removal from combat is the same situation
your lottery players would face, and they would eventually reach the same
position.
>> Your system makes this kind of
>>detached view of murder accessible to everyone - which disturbs me.
>
>I am at least equally disturbed by the current political system.
As am I. But I am not willing to replace one system that disturbs me with
another system that disturbs me equally, though in a different manner.
>>A war is a big fight someone stages but doesn't get involved in. Your
>>system is essentially the same thing - just with mercenaries instead of
>>conscripted soldiers.
>
>I think you missed something there. It may be considered a "war", but it is
>only a war in microcosm: One person against another. I operate under the
>philosophy that if "war" is inevitable givens man's nature, the best kinds of
>war that we can have are the smallest ones. In other words, don't allow people
>to be dragged into war because they're forced to pay the taxes to support it, or
>go fight it, or...
It's not one person against another. The enemies never meet. It is
billions of people putting money on the table, and people dying. The
connection between the two is so tenuous it doesn't take much to completely
divorce the consequences of one from the other. I agree with you
completely that the current system is not legitimate, I just don't agree
that Assassination Politics is.
>> To put $4 million dollars on someone's head - whether
>>it is stated "for entertainment purposes only" or not - is no different
>>than the Ayatollah Khomeni calling for the assassination of Salmon Rushdie.
>
>On the other hand, if "Assassination Politics" were in place, you and I and a
>few million other people could have each donated $1 to see Khomeini dead, which
>would presumably have led him to be more careful about whose death he was
>encouraging.
I think chipping in to the "Kill Khomeni" fund is similar in scope to
Khomeni calling for Rushdies death.
>>When we start viewing people we don't like in terms of "how much money do I
>>have to put in the 'death lottery' before someone offs him?" we are taking
>>a mentality that greatly de-values life, views life in terms of units or
>>utils of pleasure (for you economy types).
>
>However, I am proposing this system to _reduce_ the amount of death, not
>increase it. I propose it because I see it as the best, certain way to
>eliminate war and a host of other political problems.
I see it turning into a Ray Bradbury novel (a la Farenheit 451). A system
that divorces the decision from the consequences cannot be used effectively
for anything positive... at least, not in the long term. Or, in other
words, ends do not justify means.
>> Ultimately, where would this
>>set-up go? Would it be used only for the huge war criminals? Or simply be
>>restricted to the tyrants and dictators?
>
>No, it would eliminate all governments, at least as we know them.
As we know them, yes, but new ones would come up. Perhaps ones where
governments were hordes of people shoving their money together to kill off
other members of other governments before they were killed themselves.
Basically, city states funding mercenary armies and assassins.
>> Even if it were, who is to say
>>another system wouldn't be set up by the tyrants and dictators to combat
>>it?
>
>Hypothesize how this might happen... Hint: If they were "tyrants and
>dictators," then how would they survive in a world in which everybody else can
>eliminate them quickly and easily.
Tyrants and dictators come in all flavors. Some are even charismatic.
Some are even loved by the people they choose not to oppress. Hitler
certainly had his supporters... and Hitler would have made out like a
bandit in this system. It's not like people WEREN'T trying to assassinate
him, you know...
>> And all this aside, what would it do the mentality of the people
>>involved in it? Would they begin evaluating people in terms of "Cash/Kill
>>ratios?"
>
>Do we really have a choice? Think about it. This system is technologically
>possible; how would we avoid it? In my opinion, it has the possibility of doing
>great good. It may, arguably, do some bad. Is there a way to know, for sure,
>which is greater? Would you reject an improvement?
Yes. We always have a choice. Even if the choice is to resist and die, we
have a choice. I hope that I will always choose against the society that
devalues human life to the point where it sees no moral consequence in
contributing to a death fund.
Even in situations where assassination is neccessary, it should not be
forgotten what you are doing, and what it means. To think nothing of the
destruction of another human beings life is extremely frightening, no
matter how monstrous they are. Perhaps it is neccessary for self-defense,
or to resist tyranny (in the Hitler example again - I believe the plot to
kill Hitler was justified, but it was still Murder), but that does not take
away the nature of what is being done... murder.
>>I don't mind admitting I find this an extremely disturbing idea.
>>Fascinating, yes, but distrubing nonetheless.
>
>I've pondered it for over a year. I think that if you consider it as long as
>I have, objectively, you'll conclude that we are going to adopt this system,
>like it or not. And it will dramatically improve our society, as odd as that
>conclusion will look to you right now.
Sorry, I don't want to give up my humanity to get that society. Then
agian, I have been accused of being an idealist and a romantic.
Miradus
jim...@pacifier.com (jimbell) wrote:
>I think you've messed up on the timeline. Germany invaded Russia in 1940, I
>think, but the bomb attempt on Hitler's life was 1944 as mentioned above.
Wasn't the war in Russia still going in that time? What was the date
on the Stalingrad seige?
>That aside, I think it would be misguided to reject the use of assassination
>(both of leaders and lower-level people) as a cure for governmental problems.
>While it is always possible to hypothesize (as you did above) that a particular
>killing at a particular time could have some unintended consequences, over the
>long term I think it would weaken and probably eliminate government. This would
>lead to the elimination of the "war problem."
Eliminating government would eliminate war? How so? Seems it would
promote anarchy, in which more people die than in war. Government may
not be the greatest thing in the world, but it beats chaos. Take a
peek at some of the newly toppled governments around the world where
refugees pour across the borders on their way out? Where those who
stay are shot or starve. Sounds like a lot of fun to me.
When one person or one group take it upon themselves to eliminate a
figure in power, you are opening yourself up to all sorts of problems.
Look at all the assasinations at the close of the Roman empire...
every other day you had some poor bastard getting knifed in the forum,
and some other senator or general would take his place almost
immediately. All it did was hasten the decline.
Before most 'modern' countries would fall, however, I think they would
become a police-state.
Miradus
James A. Donald
mir...@ionet.net (Miradus) wrote:
> Eliminating government would eliminate war? How so? Seems it would
> promote anarchy, in which more people die than in war.
This varies: some parts of Somalia are a lot more peaceful than most
of Africa, some are considerably less peaceful. Those parts that are
considerably less peaceful are those parts were certain leaders are
vigorously attempting to create a government, though so far without
much success.
> Take a
> peek at some of the newly toppled governments around the world where
> refugees pour across the borders on their way out? Where those who
> stay are shot or starve. Sounds like a lot of fun to me.
Nobody flees the absence of government: The refugees you refer to
invariably flee governments, or warlords attempting to become
governments. For example our most notable bunches of refugees comes
from Rwanda and Vietnam, where they are not merely fleeing
governments, but fleeing authoritarian governments.
Liberia for example has an officially recognized government which is
industriously killing large numbers of people. How can the papers
talk of anarchy in Liberia when much of the raping and killing and
looting and burning is done by the conscripted troops of the
internationally recognized coalition government?
Despite the extensive violence in much of Somalia, nobody is fleeing
Somalia, though people do flee the less peaceful parts of Somalia to
the more peaceful parts.
Similarly the only reasonably peaceful and prosperous part of Zaire is
Easter Kasai, where the central government's authority has pretty much
collapsed due to a flood of refugees fleeing state sponsored genocide.
Every single big flood of refugees was caused by mass murder, or mass
abduction for forced labor, and every single mass murder or mass
enslavement was done by a government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com
jimbell
mir...@ionet.net (Miradus) wrote:
> That's a hard call to make. For example, many of Hitler's more
>military minded disciples were opposed to the push into Russia, and
>some of them were behind the attempt to kill Hitler. (The bomb
>beneath the table)
> If this bomb had succeeded, you could argue that Germany might not
>have sapped its strength by entering Russia in winter and concentrated
>it's efforts on pushing back the allies on their Western front.
>Conceivably, they could have taken England and when Japan entered the
>war, the combined Axis powers could have threatened American soil.
I'm only seeing your initial post, and James Donald's post, as well as one of my
own. He responded to material of yours that I cannot see (yet.?)
Ken Arromdee
Wouldn't the same kind of computerized anonymity which lets someone donate
money for assassination without being traceable, also allow governments to
operate anonymously (paying people in a similar anonymous way, sending com-
mands in such a way that you don't know who they came from but can verify that
they are legitimate, etc.)?
In that case, if people start anonymously making donations to have a
government member assassinated, all the government has to do is to operate
anonymously. (And before you note that if the government uses force, the
force-user has to operate physically and so not be anonymous, remember that
the same argument applies to the hired assassins, who _also_ have to operate
physically.)
--
Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, karr...@nyx.cs.du.edu;
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~arromdee)
"Kermit the Pig?!?!?!?!" -- The Muppet Show
jimbell
bren...@richmond.infi.net wrote:
>I think it would be a nightmarish fact for the same reason it would make
>excellent fiction. But more on that in a moment.
One man's nightmare is another man's dream.
>>>This is my understanding of the original post.
>>
>>That's basically it; a very serious deterrent against abuse of power.
>While I agree it's a serious deterrent against current abuse of power, I
>believe it sets a precedent for an abuse of power that is just as great.
I wish you could be a bit more quantitative about that assertion. I'm not
trying to be unreasonable; I am well aware that these matters aren't easy to
measure. However, it is important enough to spend some time on.
>>I see a problem with this claim. What, exactly, do you mean by "legitimate"?
>>I'm not just being nit-picky here. For example, there are well over 150
>>national governments; are they "legitimate" by your definition? (some of them
>>have killed thousands; others, millions.)
>No, they are NOT legitimate. I am an anarchist. I accept the legitimacy
>of NO system that exists through coercion. Groups and "institutions", if
>you want to use the term, are legitimate only when its members are members
>because they made the decision to be a part of the group. In other words,
>the only legitimate "organization" is the voluntary and mutually accepted
>association of individuals.
I don't disagree; however, we don't have such a system today, and I have
proposed a method to allow people to eliminate other than voluntary
associations. You apparently don't disagree with that ability; what you object
to is abuse of that system. I'd say my idea has met the standard to be worth
considering in much greater detail.
>>>My response to this is a strong "No." A system that removes any possible
>>>involvement or repsonsibility for the murder of a human being, even a total
>>>bastard of a human being, carries its own consequences.
>>
>>Remember, I didn't claim that the system I propose is perfect, by definition.
>>Bad things would still happen, occasionally. However, they might happen far
>>less often than the current system.
>Two things:
>1. I don't think the argument that "Assassination Politics would be less
>bad than the current situation" is the same as "Assassination Politics is a
>good idea." While you may be right (at the moment I have not been
>convinced that Assassination Politics won't ultimately turn into an
>incredibly oppressive version of "lynching for dollars") that the current
>system is WORSE I don't think that Assassination Politics will create a
>society that is BETTER ENOUGH to justify what it does.
There is a certain danger in trying to compare my proposed system with the
status quo. The fact is, while the current system may be bad, it is "familiar":
We've sorta gotten used to it. The drug war kills thousands, but "that's okay"
because that's "normal." Almost 100 people die at Waco but "that's okay"
because that's "normal." Every few years the US invades another country
(Panama, Grenada, Lebanon, etc) but "that's okay" because that's "normal."
To say nothing of the people who died in Rwanda, Cambodia, etc, in more recent
versions of the Holocaust.
See, the problem is that we approach these outrages the way we've always done
it, belieiving that we can't do anything about them and thus we have to tolerate
them. I argue, quite to the contrary, that we CAN do something about them.
>2. I don't think the idea that "bad things MIGHT happen far less often
>than in the current system" is the same as "bad things WILL happen far less
>often than in the current system." Remember that most governments are
>created at least in part with some ethical and "noble" purposes in mind. I
>defy you to show me one government that did not eventually become rife with
>corruption and power-hungry leeches. The US is a very young country in
>comparison to many, many others and it shows more corruption up front than
>any other "democratic" country I can think of.
If anything, this sounds like an excellent argument to adopt my system.
>Remember that in your system there will still be people in positions of
>power where your game is concerned.
Well, not exactly. Remember, my system is based on the concept that ANYONE can
start their own separate organization to collect money for predictions. If any
organization became abusive, inefficient, or overly powerful, you could simply
take your business elsewhere, unlike the current governmental systems. This
would dramatically limit the ability of any individual organization to collect
power.
> Suppose someone maintaining these
>lists decided they didn't approve of the choice that a bunch of people put
>down for assasination, and changed the name to someone they didn't like?
The system would be designed so that any donors would be able to verify that
their donations were credited to the correct account, and would be able to prove
fraud (anonymously) if it was not.
>Or suppose an ultra-conservative right-wing Christian group raised an
>unGodly (pun intended) sum of money to assassinate a well-known athiest
>philosopher?
This is possible, obviously. However, remember without a government there will
be no political power to abuse, and it will become impossible for religionists
to "take over" the government. And there will be no reason for any
"well-known-atheist-philosophers" to be killed, because they will do nothing for
which most people will want to see them dead. Besides, the anonymity afforded
users of the "Net" will allow them to continue their philosophy in such a way
that they cannot be targeted.
>The fact is that until people can think for themselves (which
>is not the instinctual reaction in a government-dominated society), herd
>instincts will allow unscrupulous manipulators to lead a whole lot of
>people by the nose, and in the system you have proposed I see a large
>number of "Assassination Political Action Committees" springing up (because
>it's so much more EFFECIENT to pool your money) and your stated intent
>(power to the people) is corrupted (power to the special interest group.)
The system as I propose it automatically pools the money, and provides anonymity
to boot. I really don't see secondary organizations popping up; what are they
for anyway?
>But even ASIDE from that, my original complaint that your system removes
>any of the accountability for a human being's death still stands.
Just a sec! The US government killed 80+ people in Waco, and 2 in Ruby Ridge,
and so far none of them has been punished. I would say that in regards to
deaths caused by government, "accountability" has already been erased. The
average citizen has far more to fear from government than a random "terrorist"
attack.
> I feel
>this is the soul-killer. If someone can vote for a death and put up
>money for it in your way, they don't actually have to take any
>responsibility for what they do.
Quantify, quantify!
> At least the anarchists who practices
>propaganda by the deed, when caught, went to their deaths fully accepting
>what they did and never shirked from it. Emile Henry (a historical figure
>I find fascinating, I sort of have a love/hate relationship with his ideals
>and actions) threw a bomb into a crowded French cafe, simply because the
>people who were sitting in there were "bourgeoise." He was an anarchist
>reacting against a recent rash of arrests of entire families who were
>suspected anarchists, but he was attacking people who had no idea what was
>going on... when he was caught, he did not deny what he did, he did not
>apologize for what he did, and when he went to his death defiantly shouting
>"Long Live Anarchy!" before he was hung. He accepted the responsibility
>for what he did (I don't like what he did, but I admire how he dealt with
>its consequences) and did not back down.
Well, the way I look at it, it is far more worthy to kill people who deserve to
be killed, rather than randomly-selected individuals who might actually be on
your side. I'm proposing a system that is dramatically biased against
centralized control and authority. What more do you want?
>Assassination Politics makes life and death too easy and meaningless. No
>guilt is required, because no one will ever find out who you are. No
>attachment is required, because you don't have to face the families, the
>victim him/herself, you just donate your money and go away. Callous.
>Divorcing the violence from the act is something that seems so incredibly
>alien and repugnant to me that I can't find the words to eplain it.
What's wrong with a death, if it's the death of a person who (if allowed to
live) would continue to abuse the populace the way government officeholders and
employees currently do? Read Part 7, where I point out that I don't _want_ this
system to be used against people who don't deserve it, but I am intellectually
honest enough to admit that there is no way to guarantee this.
> I
>admit this is not the most rational of arguments, and I suppose my strong
>feelings against it negate a dispassionate argument, but I can't argue
>dispassionately about people choosing a death lottery to get rid of people
>they don't like because it's easier.
_IF_ those people currently violate others' rights, and if getting rid of them
will stop that violation, what exactly is wrong?
>>But notice that wars are primarily a product of governments gone awry; not of
>>populations gone awry. My system would, I believe, eliminate this as a source
>>of war.
>Throw your system into a society that is used to government and it will
>fall prey to the same traps. Governments start wars, yes, but people allow
>them to continue.
I argue that people are not usually given the choice. With AP, people would be
able to target the ones keeping the war alive.
>And understand that when I spoke of the detachment
>high-level military officials feel, I meant that they felt this because
>they were removed from the actual combat itself - not because they were
>members of a government. This removal from combat is the same situation
>your lottery players would face, and they would eventually reach the same
>position.
I don't think you've established this with any certainty.
>>I am at least equally disturbed by the current political system.
>As am I. But I am not willing to replace one system that disturbs me with
>another system that disturbs me equally, though in a different manner.
Again, you haven't established, QUANTITATIVELY, that there will be a similar
problem. Without such an analysis, how can you tell???
>>I think you missed something there. It may be considered a "war", but it is
>>only a war in microcosm: One person against another. I operate under the
>>philosophy that if "war" is inevitable givens man's nature, the best kinds of
>>war that we can have are the smallest ones. In other words, don't allow people
>>to be dragged into war because they're forced to pay the taxes to support it, or
>>go fight it, or...
>It's not one person against another. The enemies never meet. It is
>billions of people putting money on the table, and people dying. The
>connection between the two is so tenuous it doesn't take much to completely
>divorce the consequences of one from the other. I agree with you
>completely that the current system is not legitimate, I just don't agree
>that Assassination Politics is.
You need to show, even if AP is not "legitimate" by your standards, that it is
not an improvement over the current system. I've made claims about what it can
do, for instance stop war. You can certainly disagree with that, but I think
you have a moral responsibility to investigate claims that might actually have a
chance of solving many of today's problems.
>>On the other hand, if "Assassination Politics" were in place, you and I and a
>>few million other people could have each donated $1 to see Khomeini dead, which
>>would presumably have led him to be more careful about whose death he was
>>encouraging.
>I think chipping in to the "Kill Khomeni" fund is similar in scope to
>Khomeni calling for Rushdies death.
What do you mean, "similar in scope"? It would have kept Khomeini "honest", to
some extent. His henchmen couldn't have abused his country, or he'd get bumped
off. I call this an improvement.
>>However, I am proposing this system to _reduce_ the amount of death, not
>>increase it. I propose it because I see it as the best, certain way to
>>eliminate war and a host of other political problems.
>I see it turning into a Ray Bradbury novel (a la Farenheit 451). A system
>that divorces the decision from the consequences cannot be used effectively
>for anything positive... at least, not in the long term. Or, in other
>words, ends do not justify means.
However, rejecting a proposal is tantamount to DEFENDING the status quo, unless
you have a proposal you like better. I've actually gone out and proposed
something which has the power to change things drastically, which is something
that the last few hundred years of anarchist theory hasn't provided. I'm
reminded of a joke whose punchline is "Two boats and a helicopter, what more did
you want?!?"
>>No, it would eliminate all governments, at least as we know them.
>As we know them, yes, but new ones would come up. Perhaps ones where
>governments were hordes of people shoving their money together to kill off
>other members of other governments before they were killed themselves.
>Basically, city states funding mercenary armies and assassins.
With AP, there is a far easier way to get rid of threats. Why have an "army" if
you can kill the leaders of any threatening country by proxy? And that means,
"no armies."
>>Hypothesize how this might happen... Hint: If they were "tyrants and
>>dictators," then how would they survive in a world in which everybody else can
>>eliminate them quickly and easily.
>Tyrants and dictators come in all flavors. Some are even charismatic.
>Some are even loved by the people they choose not to oppress. Hitler
>certainly had his supporters... and Hitler would have made out like a
>bandit in this system. It's not like people WEREN'T trying to assassinate
>him, you know...
But that reasoning doesn't work. The reason assassination is normally so rare
is that it's difficult to find one person who's willing to risk everything to
kill some evil character. My system collects peoples' dissatisfaction,
denominates it in dollars, and offers it as a reward. It will entirely change
the landscape of assassination and, by extension, politics. Why don't you see
this?
>>Do we really have a choice? Think about it. This system is technologically
>>possible; how would we avoid it? In my opinion, it has the possibility of doing
>>great good. It may, arguably, do some bad. Is there a way to know, for sure,
>>which is greater? Would you reject an improvement?
>Yes. We always have a choice. Even if the choice is to resist and die, we
>have a choice. I hope that I will always choose against the society that
>devalues human life to the point where it sees no moral consequence in
>contributing to a death fund.
No, we don't "always have a choice." Too bad you can't see this.
>Even in situations where assassination is neccessary, it should not be
>forgotten what you are doing, and what it means. To think nothing of the
>destruction of another human beings life is extremely frightening, no
>matter how monstrous they are. Perhaps it is neccessary for self-defense,
>or to resist tyranny (in the Hitler example again - I believe the plot to
>kill Hitler was justified, but it was still Murder), but that does not take
>away the nature of what is being done... murder.
Doesn't bother me in the least. Allowing a dictator to live, and then following
him into a destructive war where millions of people die, that's the real crime.
Fortunately, that is going to no longer happen.
>>I've pondered it for over a year. I think that if you consider it as long as
>>I have, objectively, you'll conclude that we are going to adopt this system,
>>like it or not. And it will dramatically improve our society, as odd as that
>>conclusion will look to you right now.
>Sorry, I don't want to give up my humanity to get that society. Then
>agian, I have been accused of being an idealist and a romantic.
It sounds like that's exactly your problem. You seem to want to wait for a
"perfect" solution to show up, and in the meantime you reject all solutions that
don't meet you approval...even if they are a vast improvement over the status
quo. Somebody I think you'll see this, because you'll have no choice.
Jim Bell
jim...@pacifier.com
jimbell
escam...@world.std.com wrote:
>jim...@pacifier.com (jimbell) writes:
>Two bad answers and a good answer.
>> For a few reasons, I hesitate to term Assassination Politics as some sort of
>> insurance scheme, and yours is one of the reasons why. Insurance is already
>> heavily regulated; calling it "insurance" might simply open the door to
>> regulation I don't want.
>That's a bad answer. You call it what you want, the govt will call it
>what it wants, whose definition wins in court?
To the contrary, if _I_ call it "insurance" then the government doesn't have to
prove its case, should it choose to call it "insurance" also. I'm ahead my not
calling it insurance.
>> However, remember that nobody will know who the recipient of the reward is
>> (except he, himself) so there is no way to prove that he (or she?) has no
>> "insurable interest." At best, you can claim that the rewarding organization
>> cannot, itself, know that the recipient has "no insurable interest."
>They would likely go after the organizer. Which may be mangling the
>insurance definition a bit, but ask Jake Baker if the govt doesn't throw
>away the rulebook when it wants.
There's no doubt the government might want to throw away the rulebook. But
everyone else will be watching, and this act risks alienating people who are
already pissed at government misbehavior.
>> Even so, keep in mind that the location of that predictor is likewise unknown,
>> so it isn't clear that the law of any particular country is applicable.
>> Somebody in Australia might predict the death of somebody in Iowa, and I can't
>> see how this could be deemed to violate a law in Iowa, especially if we don't
>> know where he's from.
>That's actually a good answer. "regulatory arbitrage".
Yes, it is. And that is a far more general effect of the Internet that will
weaken governments even if you ignore "AP."
>Don't forget that national borders are not absolute defenses against
>arrest. Ask Mexico and Panama especially how much the US respects their
>borders.
True, but if anything that encourages people to use a system that has the
prospect of bringing down an abusive government. You won't be able to stop an
entire hostile world.
>However, now that I think about it (and now that I see you seem to have
>fallen in love with the system),
It has nothing to do with "falling in love with the system." It's simply
recognizing that the system would, if adopted, achieve the benefits I forsee,
and knowing that it's basically inevitable.
> I feel the major problem is this:
>The masses' perception is not generally a very good guide to the
>important issues. Most people are stupid and myopic. On any subject,
>they believe the first thing they hear, especially if it's repeated over
>and over, and especially if it appeals to their prejudices. They analyze
>nothing.
Probably true, however...
>For instance, as you may have noticed from the flamage, the general
>Usenet public perceives AP as bad (Ask Black Unicorn if you don't
>believe me :) ) If the public in general is right, then you're wrong
>because they think you are; if the public in general is wrong, then
>you're wrong because you need the public to be right and it isn't.
Four obvious problems with your thinking. First, "selection error." Probably
hundreds of times as many people read my material than those who choose to
comment. The few who comment are self-selected: They, themselves, decide to
speak up. There is no reason to assume that they constitute a representative
sample of those who see the material. Thus, merely toting up the number of
"pros" versus "cons" is not meaningful. In fact, the people who most oppose the
idea can be expected to be the most motivated to say so.
Secondly, one of the most interesting aspects of AP is that (unlike "democracy")
it would only take a relatively tiny fraction of the public, contributing to
this system, to take down the entire government. This means that even if,
arguably, only 10% of the public liked it, it would succeed. That means that
your observation is irrelevant to its success.
Third, I've noticed that much of the opposition to AP appears to be what I'd
call "crazed": (Unicorn is one of these kind of people. He is also in a
problem that would almost uniquely get harmed as a result of the adoption of
this system, second only to politicians and government employees.) They can't
stand the idea that a system such as this could exist, work, and get results.
This suggests that much of the opposition is not realistic.
Fourth, I've also noticed (as I occasionally mention) that the vast majority of
people who oppose this idea do it for incorrect reasons, and in fact obviously
incorrect ones. I'm not saying that you have to agree that NO reason is
correct, merely tha a (realistic) opponent of AP could agree that the reasons
given are usually wrong. This is interesting, because if my idea is so wrong
then it is to be expected that more people could think up realistic reasons to
oppose it. The fact that they can't is telling.
>In much the same way well-funded advertising wins votes, well-funded
>advertising would make this system behave as The Powers That Be want it
>to. It'd be different, but it'd still be hegemony.
I doubt that the system could be effectively subverted in a way that would
maintain anything close to the existing political system.
>I believe you mentioned assassinating Saddam Hussein. He has been a bad
>guy for a long time, but I doubt you (or most people) would have
>considered him as an example before the Gulf War propaganda started
>coming out. (prob. true propaganda, but manipulation all the same)
If AP had been functioning, Hussein would never have gotten into office, and he
certainly wouldn't have stayed in office.
>So when you figure how this system would work, don't forget powerful,
>well-funded propaganda machines pointing death at those who make waves.
"Well-funded" by whom?!? That's one of the big problems with AP critics. You
hypothesize people and organizations who are "well-funded," doing things which
don't make a great deal of sense.
>It's worth noting that the fastest way to get an AP price on your head
>would be to innovate, especially politically.
Once government is demolished, which do we need "political innovation"?
Jim Bell
jim...@pacifier.com
Edgar Swank
andrew_...@ccm.ch.intel.com (Andy Gough) wrote on Mon, 22 Apr 1996
20:10:08 GMT:
>Easy to set you up for a sting, however. The police send in
>a hit contract, with payment, for "Citizen X". They then
>fake Citizen X's death, complete with news stories and a
>fake funeral. Your hit man service pays off. Bingo, they
>would seem to have all the evidence they need against you
>for:
> 1) conspiracy to committ murder
> 2) running a criminal enterprise
>Ah, but this works both ways, doesn't it?
>Consider if the government wants to get rid of YOU.
>Government Official Z sends in an anonymous hit contract on
>YOU, along with $1M in digital cash. After you get murdered,
>presumably your secretary will be able to process the
>transactions to payoff.
>Your proposed system is therefore self-terminating (literally).
>Of course, you would put your own name on the list, right?
>Anything else would be unethical, right?
>Then again, if you don't, the government could just setup
>it's own anonymous hitman service--to compete with
>yours--and put your name on their list with a $1M bounty.
>That might be too much bother, though--much easier to visit
>you in the middle of the night and put a bullet in your
>head.
The easy answer to this is for the lottery organization itself to be
anonymous. This rules out a website, I guess, but not use of
pseudonymous public keys and messages placed anonymously on
newsgroups. Anon newsgroup posting is possible either by using
(differing) remailer chains ended by a mail2news gateway; or the
slightly less secure method of just using Free Agent with a
pseudonymous return address (your ISP is identified, but if it is a
large one that leaves a lot unknown.)
Also there are already at least two ISP's, one offshore, which provide
anonymous accounts; even the ISP doesn't know who you really are.
The only downside is that there is nothing to stop the lottery
organization from just keeping all the digital cash sent in.
But any such organization would be short-lived as its sources of
donations would quickly dry up.
But sooner or later, some lottery organization would decide to play it
straight. Donors would then begin to trust that public key.
But the government is necessarily run by identifiable public
officials. But note in some Latin American countries, judges are
sometime anonymous (appear in court masked) where assassination is
already practiced freely by various revolutionaries.
Nathan Myers
Edgar Swank wrote:
> The only downside is that there is nothing to stop the lottery
> organization from just keeping all the digital cash sent in.
*This* is interesting.
How would anybody know whether the org was paying out?
It would never benefit anybody who knows whether they are
paying out to say. Of course anonymous rumors would fly,
and high school kids would have a ball starting rumors.
In fact, the org could just spend all the money, and nobody
but the anonymous duped killers would be the wiser. Eventually
some would get arrested (through their own stupidity) and then
complain that they hadn't even got paid; but they might just
have been too stupid to figure out how to collect.
Of course the organizer could post anonymous "success stories"
on a regular basis to keep the money coming in.
Nathan Myers
n...@cantrip.org
Kenneth Arromdee
In article <4m4e3r$6...@bolivia.it.earthlink.net>,
Edgar Swank <ed...@garg.campbell.ca.us> wrote:
>But the government is necessarily run by identifiable public
>officials.
It is?
In "assassination politics", people can pay for assassinations anonymously.
What keeps government figures from giving orders anonymously and paying for
the use of government force anonymously? (And before you say that the people
physically using the force must be visible, this of course applies to
assassins too, and the reasons why being visible would not stop assassins also
explain why it would not stop government muscle.)
jimbell
Nathan Myers <n...@cantrip.org> wrote:
>Edgar Swank wrote:
>> The only downside is that there is nothing to stop the lottery
>> organization from just keeping all the digital cash sent in.
>*This* is interesting.
>How would anybody know whether the org was paying out?
It shouldn't surprise you that there is an answer to this question. I quote the
following from Part 3 of the essay, which you apparently didn't read or had
forgotten:
This process sounds intricate, but it (and even some more detail I
haven't described above) is all necessary to:
1. Keep the donors, as well as the predictors, absolutely anonymous,
not only to the public and each other, but also to the organization
itself, either before or after the prediction comes true.
2. Ensure that neither the organization, nor the donors, nor the
public, is aware of the contents of the "prediction" unless and until
it later becomes true. (This ensures that none of the other
participants can be "guilty" of knowing this, before it happens.)
3. Prove to the donors (including potential future predictors), the
organization, and the public that indeed, somebody predicted a
particular death on a particular date, before it actually happened.
4. Prove to the donors and the public (including potential future
predictors) that the amount of money promised was actually paid to
whoever made the prediction that later came true. This is important,
obviously, because you don't want any potential predictor to doubt
whether he'll get the money if he makes a successful prediction, and you
don't want any potential donor to doubt that his money is actually going
to go to a successful predictor.
5. Prevent the organization and the donors and the public from knowing,
for sure, whether the predictor actually had anything to do with the
death predicted. This is true even if (hypothetically) somebody is
later caught and convicted of a murder, which was the subject of a
successful "prediction": Even after identifying the murderer through
other means, it will be impossible for anyone to know if the murderer
and the predictor were the same person.
6. Allow the predictor, if he so chooses, to "gift" the reward
(possibly quite anonymously) to any other person, one perhaps totally
unaware of the source of the money, without anyone else knowing of this.
[end of quote]
>It would never benefit anybody who knows whether they are
>paying out to say. Of course anonymous rumors would fly,
>and high school kids would have a ball starting rumors.
>In fact, the org could just spend all the money, and nobody
>but the anonymous duped killers would be the wiser. Eventually
>some would get arrested (through their own stupidity) and then
>complain that they hadn't even got paid; but they might just
>have been too stupid to figure out how to collect.
>Of course the organizer could post anonymous "success stories"
>on a regular basis to keep the money coming in.
I'm really surprised that you would criticize this idea for reasons that you
could have easily found out to be false simply by reading the essay. Then
again, if I knew you better, maybe I wouldn't be surprised...
Jim Bell
jim...@pacifier.com
jimbell
arro...@hops.cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee) wrote:
>In article <4m4e3r$6...@bolivia.it.earthlink.net>,
>Edgar Swank <ed...@garg.campbell.ca.us> wrote:
>>But the government is necessarily run by identifiable public
>>officials.
>It is?
>In "assassination politics", people can pay for assassinations anonymously.
>What keeps government figures from giving orders anonymously and paying for
>the use of government force anonymously?
Where does government get the money? Answer: Taxes.
Doesn't it anger people who have that tax money stolen from them? Answer: Yes.
Wouldn't those people be willing to pay a portion of this money, ONCE, to
eliminate that theft permanently? Answer: Probably.
There's your answer. For every dollar the government spends, that dollar
represents a taxpayer angered that his money is being taken, and is doubly angry
about what it's being used for. He has every reason to "zero" those who take
it, and those who help them.
> (And before you say that the people
>physically using the force must be visible, this of course applies to
>assassins too, and the reasons why being visible would not stop assassins also
>explain why it would not stop government muscle.)
>Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, karr...@nyx.cs.du.edu;
> http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~arromdee)
It sounds like you haven't thought it through, have you?
Assassins need not be visible, especially assassins who kill low- and
medium-level government employees. They need act only once, to shut down
someone else's career.
Government employees, on the other hand, have to operate according to rules, and
they must do things on a regular basis to identify themselves to others.
So-called "law-enforcement" types must testify in courts, politicians must run
for office. Even ordinary government employees generally haven't been
particularly secretive about their jobs, and probably for each such employee
dozens of other people know who they are, where they live, and a few of them
would be willing to identify them.
Also, there is also the possibility of a government employee defecting, possibly
anonymously, and revealing the identities and addresses of his co-workers, or
perhaps his bosses. He might do this for revenge, or perhaps he develops a
conscience when he sees government becoming far more surreptitious and secretive
that he could tolerate. He might even do this for money.
Further, all these employees are in the same boat: Each knows that he might be
turned in by any of his fellows. It's the "Prisoner's Dilemma," if you know
anything about Game Theory. But instead of there being two prisoners, there are
thousands, and nobody will know who "took the deal" and sold out his co-workers.
Some might even be willing to try to collect on the rewards on his co-workers,
since he already has the advantage that he knows who they are and where they
live.
Also, and perhaps most importantly, each knows that the only thing he has to do
to likely save himself is to _resign_! Any sympathy from ordinary citizens he
might normally expect to receive will be muted by this fact. "Why not just quit
and find a real job?" Anyone who insists on staying will be seen as the thug he
really is.
Yet another problem: If these employees discover that there is, for example, a
20% probability that they will be killed, per year, they will presumably insist
on a far higher salary to compensate for this risk. The income of the
government will already be way down because of inability to collect many taxes,
and suddenly its expenses per person will skyrocket. Many employees wll be laid
off (many in "innocuous" jobs), and those that are will resent the fact that the
few thugs get to keep their jobs. They won't be happy, and will turn in their
former co-workers for this reason.
The whole thing will be like a house of cards; once the bottom card is removed
the thing will come crashing down.
BTW, none of these factors affect an anonymous assassin.
Care to try again?
Jim Bell
jim...@pacifier.com
Kenneth Arromdee
In article <4maq9q$e...@news.pacifier.com>,
jimbell <jim...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>Assassins need not be visible, especially assassins who kill low- and
>medium-level government employees. They need act only once, to shut down
>someone else's career.
>Government employees, on the other hand, have to operate according to rules, and
>they must do things on a regular basis to identify themselves to others.
The things that involve being "identified" to others may be done anonymously.
>So-called "law-enforcement" types must testify in courts,
Which can be done anonymously. It will require that our system of government
change to allow such testimony, but since you're postulating changes in
government anyway, hey.
>politicians must run
>for office.
This has to be done in public, but all that it means is that assassination
politics stops _democratic_ governments, not all governments. Dictators
don't have to run for office.
>Also, there is also the possibility of a government employee defecting, possibly
>anonymously, and revealing the identities and addresses of his co-workers, or
>perhaps his bosses.
How can he do this if his co-workers and bosses are anonymous too?
--
Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, karr...@nyx.cs.du.edu;
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~arromdee)
"Kermit the Pig?!?!?!?!" -- The Muppet Show
Alberich
I take issue with your assumption that this system would mean the
elimination of war.
Aggressive impulses are a basic part of human nature. If we do not
have wars, we will have gang wars. . . and the anarchy resulting from
this system would be likely to lead to that IMHO.
Look at the way people can be swayed by the media. Look at the way
people can be swayed by racist and nationalist rhetoric. Then tell me
getting rid of ten or fifteen 'leaders' would prevent war.
The only way you would have of preventing war is shooting the whole
damn lot of humankind. Why not just go for MAD instead with a nice big
nuke?
Alberich
>>And any judge thinking of going up against this system would have to have
>>a death-wish.
May I translate?
"You mess with us, and we will kill you."
How is this democratic? It is a pure appeal to force.
Alberich
You've opened up an interesting technical point. In the UK (I'm only
reasonably expert on my own country's security laws) there are very
specific rules against money laundering by banks. Unless you're happy
holding tons of electronic credits, you will need to transfer your
'hit man reward' or 'prediction reward' (whichever we decide to call
it) into a bank account at some stage. You will then need to identify
yourself (big hole in the theory!). - if the sum transferred is larger
than say £1,000, you may well be asked to account for where the money
came from. Another big hole.
The anti-laundering rules, IMO, would present a big problem. I don't
think many people would be happy collecting on their "prediction" if
they realised that the act of banking the funds would automatically
make them prime suspect.
Alberich
>> No longer would we be
>>electing people who will turn around and tax us to death, regulate us
>>to death, or for that matter sent hired thugs to kill us when we oppose
>>their wishes.
Sending hired thugs to kill them - isn't that exactly what you would
be doing?
Yes, we need some way of dealing with those who abuse the process of
government. But your system is pretty clunky - there's no room for
debate or for a fair trial.
Now, DO YOU believe that the right to a fair trial is one of the basic
rights necessary in a democracy? Or don't you?
John Williamson
In article <4m1kng$a...@news.pacifier.com>, jimbell
<jim...@pacifier.com> writes
--
John Williamson
Regarding AP, we in Britain have one of the most corrupt governments
in the 'so-called' democratic world. With only a majority of 1, I am
disappointed that no left wing group has disposed of one of them. The
IRA has had several goes - the rocket attack on 10 Downing St, when
the Cabinet was meeting and the attack on them at their annual
conference at Brighton (mad cow Thatcher escaped as she was on the john).
John
jimbell
arro...@hops.cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee) wrote:
>In article <4maq9q$e...@news.pacifier.com>,
>jimbell <jim...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>>Assassins need not be visible, especially assassins who kill low- and
>>medium-level government employees. They need act only once, to shut down
>>someone else's career.
>>Government employees, on the other hand, have to operate according to rules, and
>>they must do things on a regular basis to identify themselves to others.
>The things that involve being "identified" to others may be done anonymously.
Except that government , for it to have any effect at all, must "enforce" its
will. Any such enforcement can be targeted.
>>So-called "law-enforcement" types must testify in courts,
>Which can be done anonymously. It will require that our system of government
>change to allow such testimony, but since you're postulating changes in
>government anyway, hey.
Nope! What I'm describing is, in effect, the ELIMINATION of government. Or,
more accurately, I'm pointing out that while the (for example) U.S. Constitution
specifies a form of government, it can't guarantee that anybody would actually
want to run for office. A depopulated government is no government.
The kind of change that would be required in your hypothesis above is a
constitutional amendment, which are notoriously hard to do.
>>politicians must run for office.
>This has to be done in public, but all that it means is that assassination
>politics stops _democratic_ governments, not all governments. Dictators
>don't have to run for office.
But dictators depend on lower-level people to do their dirty work. If these
people are known, THEY will be targeted preferentially until the dictator is
powerless. Remember, despite my calling this "_assassination_ politics", and
while the word "assassination" is often used to denote killing of only the
highest-level of government officeholder, there is nothing difficult about
targeting whatever level of agent which is necessary to eliminate the
government.
>>Also, there is also the possibility of a government employee defecting, possibly
>>anonymously, and revealing the identities and addresses of his co-workers, or
>>perhaps his bosses.
>How can he do this if his co-workers and bosses are anonymous too?
You're forgetting something. The government already exists, and the people
there know each other fairly well. The anonymity you imagine can't exist with
the current crop of people, and since they last 20+ years in a career-type job
that kind of anonymity can't be achieved. Or, at least, it can't be achieved in
the time frame that would be necessary to avoid the elimination of government.
The kind of assassin-anonymity that I'm hypothesizing _CAN_ exist, immediately,
because none of these people can be identified, since they might not even know
they're going to do this sort of work. The result is that my system has a
powerful advantage over the status quo that won't be soon lost. That's why I
think it will win.
jimbell
val cosgrave
smokes...@valleynet.com (Benjamin) wrote:
>As far as I can tell, this would be classified as a betting pool
>and would not in fact be legal.
he only sensible solution.keep up the good work.
>
Kenneth Arromdee
In article <4mjbv0$2...@news.pacifier.com>,
jimbell <jim...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>>>Government employees, on the other hand, have to operate according to rules, and
>>>they must do things on a regular basis to identify themselves to others.
>>The things that involve being "identified" to others may be done anonymously.
>Except that government , for it to have any effect at all, must "enforce" its
>will. Any such enforcement can be targeted.
What about enforcement via anonymous assassins?
>>>So-called "law-enforcement" types must testify in courts,
>>Which can be done anonymously. It will require that our system of government
>>change to allow such testimony, but since you're postulating changes in
>>government anyway, hey.
>The kind of change that would be required in your hypothesis above is a
>constitutional amendment, which are notoriously hard to do.
Oh no, it's easy. The government could allow such testimony and ignore the
Constitution.
>>>politicians must run for office.
>>This has to be done in public, but all that it means is that assassination
>>politics stops _democratic_ governments, not all governments. Dictators
>>don't have to run for office.
>But dictators depend on lower-level people to do their dirty work. If these
>people are known, THEY will be targeted preferentially until the dictator is
>powerless.
These lower-level people need not run for office either.
>>>Also, there is also the possibility of a government employee defecting, possibly
>>>anonymously, and revealing the identities and addresses of his co-workers, or
>>>perhaps his bosses.
>>How can he do this if his co-workers and bosses are anonymous too?
>You're forgetting something. The government already exists, and the people
>there know each other fairly well. The anonymity you imagine can't exist with
>the current crop of people...
>The kind of assassin-anonymity that I'm hypothesizing _CAN_ exist, immediately,
>because none of these people can be identified, since they might not even know
>they're going to do this sort of work. The result is that my system has a
>powerful advantage over the status quo that won't be soon lost. That's why I
>think it will win.
If you are specifically claiming that "assassination politics" can be put into
place in the current system, and will then win over the current system, then
several objections that have been ignored suddenly apply again. For instance,
the ability of foreign governments to use assassination politics to kill
Americans was ignored because there will not be foreign governments any more
than there will be a domestic government. It cannot be ignored, however, if
assassination is put into practice in the present day complete with foreign
governments.
jimbell
>Regarding AP, we in Britain have one of the most corrupt governments
>in the 'so-called' democratic world. With only a majority of 1, I am
>disappointed that no left wing group has disposed of one of them. The
>IRA has had several goes - the rocket attack on 10 Downing St, when
>the Cabinet was meeting and the attack on them at their annual
>conference at Brighton (mad cow Thatcher escaped as she was on the john).
>John
Here's a guess as to why they haven't. "Assassination Politics" doesn't merely
get rid of the government you _don't_ like; it gets rid of _every_ government,
including future ones as well. . If a person wants to control, but just
doesn't want to be controlled, he would see AP as a far too effective solution,
eliminating forever any hope he has of inflicting his government on everybody
else. It is, ironically, perhaps the most "egalitarian" system we'll ever
see.
The "left" in Britain probably just doesn't want to preclude their own control.
But it won't make any difference.
Jim Bell
jim...@pacifier.com
Nightfly
jim...@pacifier.com (jimbell) wrote:
>John Williamson <jw...@jwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>John Williamson
>>Regarding AP, we in Britain have one of the most corrupt governments
>>in the 'so-called' democratic world. With only a majority of 1, I am
>>disappointed that no left wing group has disposed of one of them. The
>>IRA has had several goes - the rocket attack on 10 Downing St, when
>>the Cabinet was meeting and the attack on them at their annual
>>conference at Brighton (mad cow Thatcher escaped as she was on the john).
>>John
You won't see the IRA trying something like that again as they know
they loose too much "sympathy support" from non Irish supporters.
As for you being "disappointed" that they havn't been wasted yet, is
that in the West generally we try to resolve political agenda's using
erm how shall i put it, politics!
Now "Assasination Politics" (which to me sounds like a complete
contradiction) and actually staging a coup will do nothing to help
sort out some of the UK's problems, all that would happen is that they
would be replaced by another group of equally inept powermongers, who
would feel more akin to ruling using force rather than the current
attempt at a democracy (albeit a rather poor one).
>Here's a guess as to why they haven't. "Assassination Politics" doesn't merely
>get rid of the government you _don't_ like; it gets rid of _every_ government,
>including future ones as well. . If a person wants to control, but just
>doesn't want to be controlled, he would see AP as a far too effective solution,
>eliminating forever any hope he has of inflicting his government on everybody
>else. It is, ironically, perhaps the most "egalitarian" system we'll ever
>see.
For how long? How will this be enforced, someone with more resources,
money, drugs, guns, better planned religion, icbms, will start to
gather "like minded individuals" and start to tell others how to
live., some will join them, others will fight, and we're back where we
started.
>The "left" in Britain probably just doesn't want to preclude their own control.
>But it won't make any difference.
To what?
To me and many others here on alt.cyberpunk, alternative ways of
governing ourselves have been explored ad-nauseum. We've had the
Neutopians preach the lovolution, and now you want to go the other
extreme and talk about a world where theoretically everyone is in fear
for their lives. We're along way off living in a world *so* boring
that death is something to look forward to. Sure some of us push it,
brushing with death is a rush, but to the common man and woman brought
up on a diet of David Letterman, pop tarts and the latest four door
family saloon are by and large happy with that. Sheep they maybe, but
its the truth.
To change the world you have to understand the rules, no-one appart
from a few other fruitcakes will ever follow such a poorly thought out
idea, unless you are prepared to manipulate, brainwash and cheat other
people, and that makes you worse than what we have.
>Jim Bell
>jim...@pacifier.com
^^^^^^? Is that like the thing babies suck when they
cry?
Nightfly
Computer Consultant
DJ , Intensity Freak and Righteous Bad Ass
Have a nice day.
jimbell
val cosgrave <val...@indigo.ie> wrote:
Perhaps you didn't notice, but you responded to a 2-line message that was
challenged, and so far this "Benjamin" hasn't shown up to defend his unsupported
claims. Saying something is "illegal" generally requires a little more than a
bare assertion to be credible; so far he's not credible.
jimbell
ni...@leapfrog.almac.co.uk (Nightfly) wrote:
>jim...@pacifier.com (jimbell) wrote:
>>John Williamson <jw...@jwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>John Williamson
>>>Regarding AP, we in Britain have one of the most corrupt governments
>>>in the 'so-called' democratic world. With only a majority of 1, I am
>>>disappointed that no left wing group has disposed of one of them. The
>>>IRA has had several goes - the rocket attack on 10 Downing St, when
>>>the Cabinet was meeting and the attack on them at their annual
>>>conference at Brighton (mad cow Thatcher escaped as she was on the john).
>>>John
>You won't see the IRA trying something like that again as they know
>they loose too much "sympathy support" from non Irish supporters.
Notice that you were quoting John WIlliamson above...
>As for you being "disappointed" that they havn't been wasted yet, is
>that in the West generally we try to resolve political agenda's using
>erm how shall i put it, politics!
"Politics" assumes that any given issue ought to be decided by politics. I
disagree.
>Now "Assasination Politics" (which to me sounds like a complete
>contradiction)
Well, in a sense it is. It's the end of politics, really.
> and actually staging a coup will do nothing to help
>sort out some of the UK's problems,
Ah! There you make a mistake. A "coup" assumes that power would be taken over
by another group. AP makes this impossible; it would dissolve all governments,
permanently. The current government would go away, but no centralized
government would take its place.
>all that would happen is that they
>would be replaced by another group of equally inept powermongers, who
>would feel more akin to ruling using force rather than the current
>attempt at a democracy (albeit a rather poor one).
You need to read my whole essay, if you haven't before. It will explain why
that can't happen.
>>Here's a guess as to why they haven't. "Assassination Politics" doesn't merely
>>get rid of the government you _don't_ like; it gets rid of _every_ government,
>>including future ones as well. . If a person wants to control, but just
>>doesn't want to be controlled, he would see AP as a far too effective solution,
>>eliminating forever any hope he has of inflicting his government on everybody
>>else. It is, ironically, perhaps the most "egalitarian" system we'll ever
>>see.
>For how long?
Forever.
> How will this be enforced, someone with more resources,
>money, drugs, guns, better planned religion, icbms, will start to
>gather "like minded individuals" and start to tell others how to
>live., some will join them, others will fight, and we're back where we
>started.
No, because any threatening individual or group will be "predicted to death"
posthaste.
>>The "left" in Britain probably just doesn't want to preclude their own control.
>>But it won't make any difference.
>To what?
To the eventual outcome. The system's inevitable. Read the essay; it explains
why. I'll forward it to you; I assume it's no longer available on your
newsfeed.
>To me and many others here on alt.cyberpunk, alternative ways of
>governing ourselves have been explored ad-nauseum.
They might be wrong. I might be right.
> We've had the
>Neutopians preach the lovolution, and now you want to go the other
>extreme and talk about a world where theoretically everyone is in fear
>for their lives.
Thomas Edison tried hundreds of differnet materials to make light bulb filaments
before he found one that would work.
And BTW, we're already all "in fear of our lives." You know, muggings and
carjackings. How is my system worse, quantitatively?
> We're along way off living in a world *so* boring
>that death is something to look forward to. Sure some of us push it,
>brushing with death is a rush, but to the common man and woman brought
>up on a diet of David Letterman, pop tarts and the latest four door
>family saloon are by and large happy with that. Sheep they maybe, but
>its the truth.
I see you're gonna be disappointed, so to speak.
>To change the world you have to understand the rules,
But you don't necessarily have to _follow_ the rules!
>no-one appart
>from a few other fruitcakes will ever follow such a poorly thought out
>idea, unless you are prepared to manipulate, brainwash and cheat other
>people, and that makes you worse than what we have.
The system I've described will work even if only a small proportion of the
population uses it, at first. That's what makes it so amazing, really.
jimbell
ni...@leapfrog.almac.co.uk (Nightfly) wrote:
>jim...@pacifier.com (jimbell) wrote:
>>John Williamson <jw...@jwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>John Williamson
>>>Regarding AP, we in Britain have one of the most corrupt governments
>>>in the 'so-called' democratic world. With only a majority of 1, I am
>>>disappointed that no left wing group has disposed of one of them. The
>>>IRA has had several goes - the rocket attack on 10 Downing St, when
>>>the Cabinet was meeting and the attack on them at their annual
>>>conference at Brighton (mad cow Thatcher escaped as she was on the john).
>>>John
>You won't see the IRA trying something like that again as they know
Jean-Francois Avon
PLEASE NOTE: THIS POST DOES NOT MEAN THAT I ENDORSE MR. BELL'S
SYSTEM. MY RATIONNAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT IT'S INTERNAL MECHANICS
DOES NOT MEAN THAT I LIKE THE SYSTEM.
10054...@compuserve.com (Alberich) wrote:
>>> No longer would we be
>>>electing people who will turn around and tax us to death, regulate us
>>>to death, or for that matter sent hired thugs to kill us when we oppose
>>>their wishes.
>Sending hired thugs to kill them - isn't that exactly what you would
>be doing?
Not "he", but anybody who decides to set up a server. The
question is not "should this system exist?" but rather "can you
come up with a politico-social solution that will make it
obsolete?" Frankly, I see that thing as unavoidable.
>Yes, we need some way of dealing with those who abuse the process of
>government. But your system is pretty clunky - there's no room for
>debate or for a fair trial.
In a sense, you realized just what I said in my preceeding
paragraph.
>Now, DO YOU believe that the right to a fair trial is one of the basic
>rights necessary in a democracy? Or don't you?
Again, the question is not whether or not Jim Bell believe in
something specific, but rather "is there at least one individual
that does not believe in it?" And if you answer yes, the system
is unavoidable...
JFA
DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee
Limoges porcelain, Silverware and mouth blown crystal glasses
JFA Technologies, R&D consultants.
Physists, technologists and engineers.
PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon
ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891
Unsollicited comercial e-maill will be profread at US165 $/h
Any sender of such matterrial will be conssidderred as to have ac-
cepted the abbove menttionned terms.
Jean-Francois Avon
PLEASE NOTE: THIS POST DOES NOT MEAN THAT I ENDORSE MR. BELL'S
SYSTEM. MY RATIONNAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT IT'S INTERNAL MECHANICS
DOES NOT MEAN THAT I LIKE THE SYSTEM.
10054...@compuserve.com (Alberich) wrote:
>You've opened up an interesting technical point. In the UK (I'm only
>reasonably expert on my own country's security laws) there are very
>specific rules against money laundering by banks. Unless you're happy
>holding tons of electronic credits, you will need to transfer your
>'hit man reward' or 'prediction reward' (whichever we decide to call
>it) into a bank account at some stage.
No. peoples might simply decide to consider e-cash as as valid
as usual cash.
>You will then need to identify
>yourself (big hole in the theory!). - if the sum transferred is larger
>than say £1,000, you may well be asked to account for where the money
>came from. Another big hole.
I don't think that too many civil servant would be very keen on
investigating you.
>The anti-laundering rules, IMO, would present a big problem. I don't
>think many people would be happy collecting on their "prediction" if
>they realised that the act of banking the funds would automatically
>make them prime suspect.
Again, there is not probable causality, but that is behind the
point. All the guy cashing the e-cash would have to do, is
simply to tell his bank personnel that if ever there is a
prosecution, he will post the name of the bank on usenet.
If the system catch up, therer will be plenty of peoples to put
money on bank's officials, just to make an "example".
To do any analysis of the system, you have to put yourself in the
shoes of the users and of the targets. Your reasoning is simply
not respecting the context.
Go read Jim Bell text again...
JFA
PLEASE NOTE: THIS POST DOES NOT MEAN THAT I ENDORSE MR. BELL'S
SYSTEM. MY RATIONNAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT IT'S INTERNAL MECHANICS
AND IT'S INTRINSIC LOGICS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I LIKE NOR ENDORSE
THE SYSTEM. I SIMPLY CONCLUDED THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PREVENT
THE SYSTEM FROM BEING IMPLEMENTED. IMO, IT IS UNAVOIDABLE.
Jean-Francois Avon
10054...@compuserve.com (Alberich) wrote:
>>>And any judge thinking of going up against this system would have to have
>>>a death-wish.
>May I translate?
>"You mess with us, and we will kill you."
Wrong again. The guy being indicted might have nothing to do
with it.
Do you think O.J. Simpson will remain alive for long if this
system is implemented? Even if it gets implemented only in
twenty years? Many peoples have a very good memory...
>How is this democratic? It is a pure appeal to force.
First, for the rhetorical question: how democracy does *not*
appeal to force?
But most important: can you propose anything that will make the
scheme obsolete? Declaring this scheme illegal will only make it
work faster.
JFA
DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee
Limoges porcelain, Silverware and mouth blown crystal glasses
JFA Technologies, R&D consultants.
Physists, technologists and engineers.
PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon
ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891
Jean-Francois Avon
10054...@compuserve.com (Alberich) wrote:
>I take issue with your assumption that this system would mean the
>elimination of war.
>Aggressive impulses are a basic part of human nature. If we do not
>have wars, we will have gang wars. . . and the anarchy resulting from
>this system would be likely to lead to that IMHO.
No. The dynamics of the system precludes that possibility.
Because no gang could exists that generates major conflicts with
another one. Everybody will have to live on the principle
"live and let live, or get killed"
Of course, letting live everybody will not garantee that nobody
will ever put a contract on you head. Crazyness always will
exists. But I think that Mr. Bell is confident that human nature
is not as evil as collectivist and statists pretends.
This is where I hesitate personnally. I think that in today's
society, where so many peoples expects a free lunch and resent
you for not supplying it to them, AP will be an extremely
dangerous thing. But again, IMO, the only way to prevent it's
appearance is to come up with a better socio-political solution.
Because the implementation of this system is only a matter of a
few months of programmation for a truly decided guy.
>Look at the way people can be swayed by the media. Look at the way
>people can be swayed by racist and nationalist rhetoric.
By saying that, you are evading the internal mechanics of AP.
First of all, many peoples hates medias' guts. They would have
to stick to the business of "objective reporting" instead of
trying to "shape" public opinion. Racists groups would get
eliminated and nationalistic one too. Here in Quebec, we have a
strong nationalist movement. The referendum last fall was 49.5%
pro-separation to 50.5 anti-separation. But all the propaganda
wouldn't have happened in the first place. And nobody is willing
to kill each others for such a question.
Remember: the essence of this system is "live and let live, or
get killed"
> Then tell me
>getting rid of ten or fifteen 'leaders' would prevent war.
At least half of the population of Germany was against war. Most
of them were educated and life-loving. But they were beaten by
brainwashed thugs. It would never have gone that far with an AP
system. Apply the basic operating principles of AP and simply
observe where it leads...
>The only way you would have of preventing war is shooting the whole
>damn lot of humankind. Why not just go for MAD instead with a nice big
>nuke?
Because most of humankind have no definite opinion. Please check
your basic premises...
PLEASE NOTE: THIS POST DOES NOT MEAN THAT I ENDORSE MR. BELL'S
SYSTEM. MY RATIONNAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT IT'S INTERNAL MECHANICS
AND IT'S INTRINSIC LOGICS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I LIKE NOR ENDORSE
THE SYSTEM. I SIMPLY CONCLUDED THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PREVENT
THE SYSTEM FROM BEING IMPLEMENTED. IMO, IT IS UNAVOIDABLE.
DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee
Jean-Francois Avon
arro...@hops.cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee) wrote:
>jimbell <jim...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>>>>Government employees, on the other hand, have to operate according to rules, and
>>>>they must do things on a regular basis to identify themselves to others.
>What about enforcement via anonymous assassins?
It wouldn't work as this condition would lead to direct violence
from citizens toward govt representative. Any attempt from the
govt to become anonymous would trigger an open civil war.
Well, maybe not here in Canada, but certainly in the USA.
>Oh no, it's easy. The government could allow such testimony and ignore the
>Constitution.
Again: instant rebellion, don't even bother to add water...
>These lower-level people need not run for office either.
Yes but it does not even affect the internal workings of AP.
Some contracts will simply be put "on any govt employee, from
department X " . And what will happens is not the killing of
specific individual, but of anybody holding some specific job.
And I don't see what prevents at least one individual to accepts
thoses rewards/predictions. AP is not specific as to what
prediction is made. It could as well be "govt employee X will
die in such and such circumstances" as " the high school carnival
queen, you know, this cute chick, will get screwed in that
location on that night after that many beers..." The bets are
not limited to killings. This system is not intrinsically
specific as to what it accepts as bets/rewards/predictions.
A) I argued with Jim Bell that the system could possibly made
more acceptable by accepting only a certain kind of bets. For
example, if an individual resign, the reward would be nullified.
B) Or again, if an innocent is killed in the actualisation of a
prediction (for example, the assasin would use a bomb rather than
a gun), then the reward is voided.
While I wrote this thing, I realized that it is not compatible
with the intrinsical logic of AP.
In case A), since the AP concept is already feasible with common
public knowledge, it would only be a matter of market. There
would be not way to enforce rules that the donators would not
like; they simply would go patronize a server that they like.
In case B), no server having thoses rules would work at all
because any assassin would see instantly that they would *never*
collect any reward: as soon as anybody would get killed, the
*govt* would *kill* an innocent to void the reward. And this,
assuming that the predictor and assasin are related...
>If you are specifically claiming that "assassination politics" can be put into
>place in the current system, and will then win over the current system, then
>several objections that have been ignored suddenly apply again.
>For instance,
>the ability of foreign governments to use assassination politics to kill
>Americans was ignored because there will not be foreign governments any more
>than there will be a domestic government. It cannot be ignored, however, if
>assassination is put into practice in the present day complete with foreign
>governments.
This is one argument that I had with Jim Bell. I called that
"initial conditions analysis". This is one of the reason I
factually consider AP *extremely* dangerous. Since this scheme
is dependent on the net, actually, the nation who have the least
access to the net will be the most likely to retain their
government, to become closed and totalitarian.
Of course, there is always money availability that have to be
considered but I did not dwell on the topic too much yet.
Another aspect of it that is very difficult to quantify is this
one: Will this system create a new breed of "ideological"
assasin, willing to kill, but only if the money AND the right
cause is there?
I have difficulty to imagine large mafia-type organizations
surviving with AP because by the nature of the individuals
populating such organisations, they will be very likely to kill
each others. So, actually, becoming an assasin might become a
"noble" job.
I think that this system will force people to do an in-depth
revision of their ethics, values and basic premises.
I think that it will make the world tend toward:
"Live and let live, or get killed"
JFA
Pat Trainor
On Thu, 9 May 1996, jimbell wrote:
> > How will this be enforced, someone with more resources,
> >money, drugs, guns, better planned religion, icbms, will start to
> >gather "like minded individuals" and start to tell others how to
> >live., some will join them, others will fight, and we're back where we
> >started.
>
> No, because any threatening individual or group will be "predicted to death"
> posthaste.
I haven't followed this thread from the beginning, but I recognize
the theme. I read _eons_ ago a short story in which this exact mechanism
was used to enforce a leaderless society. Now I'm no economist, nor
historian (future or otherwise) but I do vividly remember this story.
It was in a science-fiction compilation, as I was very prone to
read (Nebula Awards, etc..) in my early days in the military and before.
My question would be: have you ever read a story with this precice
theme? The assisns looked like (sorry) Star Wars storm troopers in white,
air conditioned suits. They were not anonymous, except that you couldn't
see their faces (is that enough?).
The story treated the same (apparently) hypothesis you mention.
The 'Assassin's Guild' I think was the title.
One of the problems in the model I read about was that the area to
be policed was too large to allow an elite minority to cover properly, or
even effectively.
It was a situation of ratios. To be superior, even with a
technological edge, you need numbers. You have to offset the balance
somehow. Population control was attempted by the guild in the end as a
measure to increase the odds in their favor. This caused an understandably
intense reaction with the masses, who were ultimately those being served.
Another problem was that the technology required for a large
coordinated effort required organization of a military nature (rank,
etc..). This was necessary due to the myriad of decisions that had to be
made.
This effectively meant you had an organization(not anarchic)
ruling, enforcing, overseeing, whatever you call it, claiming it was not a
ruling body over the masses. Yet it looked, smelled, acted and moved like
one.
For example:
A field member, due to his/her low level interaction, is not
prepared to make the descision to take someone out. You may be looking at
local territorial skirmishes that involve religious or other motives. The
fights may involve marital disputes or rituals, or may be arguements over
bad deals gone bad.
The problems of making a decision as to whether to intervene at
this level are immense. You simply don't have the big picture unless you
can see the big picture.
Surveillance was the issue. In order for the Guild to be able to
identify a problem, an immense amount of surveillance was required. Again
the technology and the infrastructure required to support it.
You may see parallels in this need for surveillance and the
recently signed bills that allow the 'good guys' to get your credit
records and legally tap your phones now. Haunting, like George Orwell, eh?
The decision had to be made by superiors who were in touch with
all the information from all areas under surveillance to make the ultimate
decision. There needed to be, effectively, a steering committee to
determine if the proposed action was both affordable and warranted.
> To the eventual outcome. The system's inevitable. Read the essay; it explains
> why. I'll forward it to you; I assume it's no longer available on your
> newsfeed.
I wouldn't mind reading it, it sounds a lot like what I'm
describing.
> They might be wrong. I might be right.
The Assassin's Guild was bought into in phases by the ruling
elements of all major powers only after they had all lost their ability to
maintain an effective repel borders and the place (earth) was a mess.
Realistically, you can't build from the ashes any faster than
anyone else is. And human nature doesn't change because of a new caveat in
religion or 'law'. A human will always be a human, regardless of what law
they proport to follow or heed.
> Thomas Edison tried hundreds of differnet materials to make light bulb filaments
> before he found one that would work.
Actually he directed experiments! :) But this statement reminded
me of the 'Infinite Number of Monkeys' theory, except applied to 'self
rule', well, I guess not, well..?
> And BTW, we're already all "in fear of our lives." You know, muggings and
> carjackings. How is my system worse, quantitatively?
Actually, you'll find folks doing the most desparate things in a
desparate world. If you try to forge order out of chaos, you quickly find
that the order you are trying to enforce feeds the chaos. You create your
own increasing difficulty by default. A society (or group of societies) in
anarchy will fear order. This, coupled with the fact that you have to
create from the same resoucres the masses have access to, makes your
efforts incredibly difficult. You will never find a unified agreement
among a society that can't feed or cloth itself. If you do, you instantly
become what you are telling the people you are trying to prevent. Folks
will see through this veil and vanquish such an effort favoring a
predictable anarchy over a concerted organized rule.
> >To change the world you have to understand the rules,
>
> But you don't necessarily have to _follow_ the rules!
That's a good point, and one I think I've shown means that you
will always have rules. Sometimes yours, sometimes theirs, if lucky a bit
of both.. But they will be there. We are a self-righteous pack-oriented
species. We thrive on group individuality! That must be why psychologists
make so much money!
> The system I've described will work even if only a small proportion of the
> population uses it, at first. That's what makes it so amazing, really.
Again, I'd appreciate a look at your paper.
Now for the subtle problems pointed out accurately in the
Assassin's Guild. As a strategic planner for a living, I have learned to
live by a good rule: Make your best estimates for a project's completion,
then double them.
A support structure required for the Assassin's Guild required
things you would never immediately think of. Support from several areas
are required. Remember, you are basically operating a country with soft
borders covering all areas, no matter how distant.
For solely the guild's efforts, no others, a few of the things
required are:
Manufacturing
Fabrication
Research & Developement
Quality Assurance
Medical
Clothing
Shelter
Food
Recreation
Self-Rule
Coordination
Information Exchange
Communication
Information Retrieval
Surveillance
Commerce
Expansion
Earth Sciences
The trouble is, each and every one of the above is subject to
espionage, revolution, corruption, pranks, etc.. Therefore each must be
treated with complete encapsulation within the guild. The only way to
exclude interference from within or without, was to closely monitor each
and every aspect of the guild's organization. Self-policing.
When you start visualizing what the organization would actually be
running (never mind the seemingly impossible task of starting the
organization from scratch), it seems a very impractical proposition.
Plus, the guild found all the military stuff laying around pretty
useful.. Folks were NOT excited about another police state..
Anyhow, sorry for the long post, but I thought perhaps you'd enjoy
the problems the Assassin's Guild had, and compare it to your own model.
later!
pat
:)
ptra...@aura.title14.com http://www.title14.com/
"Winning may not be everything, but losing is NOTHING!" -Ed Bighead
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2
mQCNAzGbzjUAAAEEAOvpOD2HKIYliI9CW5Nef5XmktGUZHeRKqfm7ia3fCi7MuaF
l5Bsa9JSVKwbWJwubDUaSzXjNPPuWMrrhOLhAfh44ZMu2RR7pPMpkw+rJFK3fr5g
H7N7Y5I/LmyHyjNzQI0EenVrhAmGw/XDpEjO5ki7estewVFZUFzM5vEgQ5pFAAUR
tCdQYXQgVHJhaW5vciA8cHRyYWlub3JAYXVyYS50aXRsZTE0LmNvbT4=
=m1Go
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
jimbell
arro...@hops.cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee) wrote:
>In article <4mjbv0$2...@news.pacifier.com>,
>jimbell <jim...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>>>>Government employees, on the other hand, have to operate according to rules, and
>>>>they must do things on a regular basis to identify themselves to others.
>>>The things that involve being "identified" to others may be done anonymously.
>>Except that government , for it to have any effect at all, must "enforce" its
>>will. Any such enforcement can be targeted.
>What about enforcement via anonymous assassins?
This technique won't protect those in government who are not anonymous.
>>>>So-called "law-enforcement" types must testify in courts,
>>>Which can be done anonymously. It will require that our system of government
>>>change to allow such testimony, but since you're postulating changes in
>>>government anyway, hey.
>>The kind of change that would be required in your hypothesis above is a
>>constitutional amendment, which are notoriously hard to do.
>Oh no, it's easy. The government could allow such testimony and ignore the
>Constitution.
That's the reason for the 2nd amendment. At the current price of a little over
10 cents for a rifle cartridge, the problems we're having with Congress would
cost about $60 to solve.
>>>>politicians must run for office.
>>>This has to be done in public, but all that it means is that assassination
>>>politics stops _democratic_ governments, not all governments. Dictators
>>>don't have to run for office.
>>But dictators depend on lower-level people to do their dirty work. If these
>>people are known, THEY will be targeted preferentially until the dictator is
>>powerless.
>These lower-level people need not run for office either.
But they can't remain anonymous; somebody has to be identifiable or it isn't a
government at all!
>>>>Also, there is also the possibility of a government employee defecting, possibly
>>>>anonymously, and revealing the identities and addresses of his co-workers, or
>>>>perhaps his bosses.
>>>How can he do this if his co-workers and bosses are anonymous too?
>>You're forgetting something. The government already exists, and the people
>>there know each other fairly well. The anonymity you imagine can't exist with
>>the current crop of people...
>>The kind of assassin-anonymity that I'm hypothesizing _CAN_ exist, immediately,
>>because none of these people can be identified, since they might not even know
>>they're going to do this sort of work. The result is that my system has a
>>powerful advantage over the status quo that won't be soon lost. That's why I
>>think it will win.
>If you are specifically claiming that "assassination politics" can be put into
>place in the current system, and will then win over the current system, then
>several objections that have been ignored suddenly apply again. For instance,
>the ability of foreign governments to use assassination politics to kill
>Americans was ignored because there will not be foreign governments any more
>than there will be a domestic government. It cannot be ignored, however, if
>assassination is put into practice in the present day complete with foreign
>governments.
Who cares? the system will operate across borders, getting rid of foreign
governments as effectively.
jimbell
Assassination Politics
by Jim Bell.
Parts 1-3 of 10
Part1
I've been following the concepts of digital cash and encryption since
I read the article in the August 1992 issue of Scientific American on
"encrypted signatures." While I've only followed the Digitaliberty area
for a few weeks, I can already see a number of points that do (and
should!) strongly concern the average savvy individual:
1. How can we translate the freedom afforded by the Internet to
ordinary life?
2. How can we keep the government from banning encryption, digital
cash, and other systems that will improve our freedom?
A few months ago, I had a truly and quite literally "revolutionary"
idea, and I jokingly called it "Assassination Politics": I speculated on
the question of whether an organization could be set up to _legally_
announce that it would be awarding a cash prize to somebody who
correctly "predicted" the death of one of a list of violators of
rights, usually either government employees, officeholders, or
appointees. It could ask for anonymous contributions from the public,
and individuals would be able send those contributions using digital
cash.
I also speculated that using modern methods of public-key encryption and
anonymous "digital cash," it would be possible to make such awards in
such a way so that nobody knows who is getting awarded the money, only
that the award is being given. Even the organization itself would have
no information that could help the authorities find the person
responsible for the prediction, let alone the one who caused the death.
It was not my intention to provide such a "tough nut to crack" by
arguing the general case, claiming that a person who hires a hit man is
not guilty of murder under libertarian principles. Obviously, the
problem with the general case is that the victim may be totally innocent
under libertarian principles, which would make the killing a crime,
leading to the question of whether the person offering the money was
himself guilty.
On the contrary; my speculation assumed that the "victim" is a
government employee, presumably one who is not merely taking a paycheck
of stolen tax dollars, but also is guilty of extra violations of rights
beyond this. (Government agents responsible for the Ruby Ridge incident
and Waco come to mind.) In receiving such money and in his various
acts, he violates the "Non-aggression Principle" (NAP) and thus,
presumably, any acts against him are not the initiation of force under
libertarian principles.
The organization set up to manage such a system could, presumably, make
up a list of people who had seriously violated the NAP, but who would
not see justice in our courts due to the fact that their actions were
done at the behest of the government. Associated with each name would
be a dollar figure, the total amount of money the organization has
received as a contribution, which is the amount they would give for
correctly "predicting" the person's death, presumably naming the exact
date. "Guessers" would formulate their "guess" into a file, encrypt it
with the organization's public key, then transmit it to the organization,
possibly using methods as untraceable as putting a floppy disk in an
envelope and tossing it into a mailbox, but more likely either a cascade
of encrypted anonymous remailers, or possibly public-access Internet
locations, such as terminals at a local library, etc.
In order to prevent such a system from becoming simply a random unpaid
lottery, in which people can randomly guess a name and date (hoping that
lightning would strike, as it occasionally does), it would be necessary
to deter such random guessing by requiring the "guessers" to include
with their "guess" encrypted and untraceable "digital cash," in an
amount sufficiently high to make random guessing impractical.
For example, if the target was, say, 50 years old and had a life
expectancy of 30 years, or about 10,000 days, the amount of money
required to register a guess must be at least 1/10,000th of the amount
of the award. In practice, the amount required should be far higher,
perhaps as much as 1/1000 of the amount, since you can assume that
anybody making a guess would feel sufficiently confident of that guess
to risk 1/1000th of his potential reward.
The digital cash would be placed inside the outer "encryption envelope,"
and could be decrypted using the organization's public key. The
prediction itself (including name and date) would be itself in another
encryption envelope inside the first one, but it would be encrypted
using a key that is only known to the predictor himself. In this way,
the organization could decrypt the outer envelope and find the digital
cash, but they would have no idea what is being predicted in the
innermost envelope, either the name or the date.
If, later, the "prediction" came true, the predictor would presumably
send yet another encrypted "envelope" to the organization, containing
the decryption key for the previous "prediction" envelope, plus a public
key (despite its name, to be used only once!) to be used for encryption
of digital cash used as payment for the award. The organization would
apply the decryption key to the prediction envelope, discover that it
works, then notice that the prediction included was fulfilled on the
date stated. The predictor would be, therefore, entitled to the award.
Nevertheless, even then nobody would actually know WHO he is!
It doesn't even know if the predictor had anything to do with the
outcome of the prediction. If it received these files in the mail, in
physical envelopes which had no return address, it would have burned the
envelopes before it studied their contents. The result is that even the
active cooperation of the organization could not possibly help anyone,
including the police, to locate the predictor.
Also included within this "prediction-fulfilled" encryption envelope
would be unsigned (not-yet-valid) "digital cash," which would then be
blindly signed by the organization's bank and subsequently encrypted
using the public key included. (The public key could also be publicized,
to allow members of the public to securely send their comments and,
possibly, further grateful remuneration to the predictor, securely.)
The resulting encrypted file could be published openly on the Internet,
and it could then be decrypted by only one entity: The person who had
made that original, accurate prediction. The result is that the
recipient would be absolutely untraceable.
The digital cash is then processed by the recipient by "unblinding" it,
a principle which is explained in far greater detail by the article in
the August 1992 issue of Scientific American. The resulting digital
cash is absolutely untraceable to its source.
This overall system achieves a number of goals. First, it totally hides
the identity of the predictor to the organization, which makes it
unnecessary for any potential predictor to "trust" them to not reveal
his name or location. Second, it allows the predictor to make his
prediction without revealing the actual contents of that prediction
until later, when he chooses to, assuring him that his "target" cannot
possibly get early warning of his intent (and "failed" predictions
need never be revealed). In fact, he needs never reveal his prediction
unless he wants the award. Third, it allows the predictor to anonymously
grant his award to anyone else he chooses, since he may give this
digital cash to anyone without fear that it will be traced.
For the organization, this system also provides a number of advantages.
By hiding the identity of the predictor from even it, the organization
cannot be forced to reveal it, in either civil or criminal court. This
should also shield the organization from liability, since it will not
know the contents of any "prediction" until after it comes true. (Even
so, the organization would be deliberately kept "poor" so that it would
be judgment-proof.) Since presumably most of the laws the organization
might be accused of violating would require that the violator have
specific or prior knowledge, keeping itself ignorant of as many facts as
possible, for as long as possible, would presumably make it very
difficult to prosecute.
[end part 1]
Part 2
"At the Village Pizza shop, as they were sitting down to consume a
pepperoni, Dorothy asked Jim, 'So what other inventions are you working
on?" Jim replied, 'I've got a new idea, but it's really revolutionary.
Literally REVOLUTIONARY.' 'Okay, Jim, which government are you
planning to overthrow?,' she asked, playing along.
'All of them,' answered Jim."
Political Implications
Imagine for a moment that as ordinary citizens were watching the
evening news, they see an act by a government employee or officeholder
that they feel violates their rights, abuses the public's trust, or
misuses the powers that they feel should be limited. A person whose
actions are so abusive or improper that the citizenry shouldn't have to
tolerate it.
What if they could go to their computers, type in the miscreant's name,
and select a dollar amount: The amount they, themselves, would be
willing to pay to anyone who "predicts" that officeholder's death. That
donation would be sent, encrypted and anonymously, to a central
registry organization, and be totaled, with the total amount available
within seconds to any interested individual. If only 0.1% of the
population, or one person in a thousand, was willing to pay $1 to see
some government slimeball dead, that would be, in effect, a $250,000
bounty on his head.
Further, imagine that anyone considering collecting that bounty could do
so with the mathematical certainty that he could not be identified,
and could collect the reward without meeting, or even talking to,
anybody who could later identify him. Perfect anonymity, perfect
secrecy, and perfect security. And that, combined with the ease and
security with which these contributions could be collected, would make
being an abusive government employee an extremely risky proposition.
Chances are good that nobody above the level of county commissioner
would even risk staying in office.
Just how would this change politics in America? It would take far less
time to answer, "What would remain the same?" No longer would we be
electing people who will turn around and tax us to death, regulate us
to death, or for that matter sent hired thugs to kill us when we oppose
their wishes.
No military?
One of the attractive potential implications of such a system would be
that we might not even need a military to protect the country. Any
threatening or abusive foreign leader would be subject to the same
contribution/assassination/reward system, and it would operate just as
effectively over borders as it does domestically.
This country has learned, in numerous examples subsequent to many wars,
that once the political disputes between leaders has ceased, we
(ordinary citizens) are able to get along pretty well with the citizens
of other countries. Classic examples are post-WWII Germany, Japan, and
Italy, and post-Soviet Russia, the Eastern bloc, Albania, and many
others.
Contrary examples are those in which the political dispute remains, such
as North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Cuba, Red China, and a few others. In
all of these examples, the opposing leadership was NOT defeated, either
in war or in an internal power struggle. Clearly, it is not the PEOPLE
who maintain the dispute, but the leadership.
Consider how history might have changed if we'd been able to "bump off"
Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh,
Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Moammar Khadafi, and various others,
along with all of their replacements if necessary, all for a measly few
million dollars, rather than the billions of dollars and millions of
lives that subsequent wars cost.
But that raises an interesting question, with an even more interesting
answer. "If all this is so easy, why hasn't this been done before?" I
mean, wars are destructive, costly, and dangerous, so why hasn't some
smart politician figured out that instead of fighting the entire
country, we could just 'zero' the few bad guys on the top?
The answer is quite revealing, and strikingly "logical": If we can kill
THEIR leaders, they can kill OUR leaders too. That would avoid the
war, but the leadership on both sides would be dead, and guess who is
making the decisions about what to do? That's right, the LEADERS!
And the leaders (both theirs and ours!) would rather see 30,000,000
ordinary people die in WWII than lose their own lives, if they can get
away with it. Same in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, and numerous
other disputes around the globe. You can see that as long as we
continue to allow leaders, both "ours" and "theirs," to decide who
should die, they will ALWAYS choose the ordinary people of each
country.
One reason the leaders have been able to avoid this solution is simple:
While it's comparatively easy to "get away with murder," it's a lot
harder to reward the person who does it, and that person is definitely
taking a serious risk. (Most murders are solved based on some prior
relationship between the murder and victim, or observations of witnesses
who know either the murderer or the victim.)
Historically, it has been essentially impossible to adequately motivate
an assassin, ensuring his safety and anonymity as well, if only because
it has been impossible to PAY him in a form that nobody can trace, and
to ensure the silence of all potential witnesses. Even if a person was
willing to die in the act, he would want to know that the people he
chooses would get the reward, but if they themselves were identified
they'd be targets of revenge.
All that's changed with the advent of public-key encryption and digital
cash. Now, it should be possible to announce a standing offer to all
comers that a large sum of digital cash will be sent to him in an
untraceable fashion should he meet certain "conditions," conditions
which don't even have to include proving (or, for that matter, even
claiming) that he was somehow responsible for a death.
I believe that such a system has tremendous implications for the future
of freedom. Libertarians in particular (and I'm a libertarian) should
pay particular attention to the fact that this system "encourages" if
not an anarchist outcome, at least a minarchist (minimal government)
system, because no large governmental structure could survive in
its current form.
In fact, I would argue that this system would solve a potential
problem, occasionally postulated, with the adoption of libertarianism in
one country, surrounded by non-libertarian states. It could have
reasonably been suspected that in a gradual shift to a libertarian
political and economic system, remnants of a non-libertarian system such
as a military would have to survive, to protect society against the
threats represented by foreign states. While certainly plausible, it
would have been hard for an average naive person to imagine how the
country would maintain a $250 billion military budget, based on
voluntary contributions.
The easy answer, of course, is that military budgets of that size would
simply not happen in a libertarian society. More problematic is the
question of how a country would defend itself, if it had to raise its
defenses by voluntary contribution. An equally simplistic answer is
that this country could probably be defended just fine on a budget 1/2
to 1/3 of the current budget. True, but that misses the point.
The real answer is even simpler. Large armies are only necessary to
fight the other large armies organized by the leadership of other,
non-libertarian states, presumably against the will of their citizenry.
Once the problem posed by _their_ leadership is solved (as well as ours;
either by their own citizenry by similar anonymous contributions, or by
ours), there will be no large armies to oppose.
[end of part 2]
Part 3
In the 1960's movie, "The Thomas Crown Affair," actor Steve McQueen
plays a bored multi-millionaire who fights tedium by arranging
well-planned high-yield bank robberies. He hires each of the robbers
separately and anonymously, so that they can neither identify him nor
each other. They arrive at the bank on schedule, separately but
simultaneously, complete the robbery, then separate forever. He pays
each robber out of his own funds, so that the money cannot be traced,
and he keeps the proceeds of each robbery.
In my recent essay generally titled "Digitaliberty," or earlier
"Assassination politics," I hypothesized that it should be possible to
LEGALLY set up an organization which collects perfectly anonymous
donations sent by members of the public, donations which instruct the
organization to pay the amount to any person who correctly guesses the
date of death of some named person, for example some un-favorite
government employee or officeholder. The organization would total
the amounts of the donations for each different named person, and
publish that list (presumably on the Internet) on a daily or perhaps
even an hourly basis, telling the public exactly how much a person would
get for "predicting" the death of that particular target.
Moreover, that organization would accept perfectly anonymous,
untraceable, encrypted "predictions" by various means, such as the
Internet (probably through chains of encrypted anonymous remailers), U.S.
mail, courier, or any number of other means. Those predictions would
contain two parts: A small amount of untraceable "digital cash," inside
the outer "digital envelope," to ensure that the "predictor" can't
economically just randomly choose dates and names, and an inner
encrypted data packet which is encrypted so that even the organization
itself cannot decrypt it. That data packet would contain the name of
the person whose death is predicted, and the date it is to happen.
This encrypted packet could also be published, still encrypted, on the
Internet, so as to be able to prove to the world, later, that SOMEBODY
made that prediction before it happened, and was willing to "put money
on it" by including it outside the inner encrypted "envelope." The
"predictor" would always lose the outer digital cash; he would only earn
the reward if his (still-secret) prediction later became true. If,
later on, that prediction came true, the "lucky" predictor would
transmit the decrypt key to the organization, untraceably, which would
apply it to the encrypted packet, and discover that it works, and read
the prediction made hours, days, weeks, or even months earlier. Only
then would the organization, or for that matter anyone else except the
predictor, know the person or the date named.
Also included in that inner encrypted digital "envelope" would be a
public key, generated by the predictor for only this particular purpose:
It would not be his "normal" public key, obviously, because _that_
public key would be traceable to him. Also present in this packet
would be "blinded" (not yet certified as being good) "digital cash"
codes, codes that would be presented to a certifying bank for their
digital "stamp of approval," making them worth the dollars that the
predictor has earned. (This presentation could be done indirectly, by an
intermediary, to prevent a bank from being able to refuse to deal with
the organization.)
Those "digital cash" codes will then be encrypted using the public key
included with the original prediction, and published in a number of
locations, perhaps on the Internet in a number of areas, and available
by FTP to anyone who's interested. (It is assumed that this data will
somehow get to the original predictor. Since it will get to "everyone"
on the Internet, it will presumably be impossible to know where the
predictor is.) Note, however, that only the person who sent the
prediction (or somebody he's given the secret key to in the interim) can
decrypt that message, and in any case only he, the person who prepared
the digital cash blanks, can fully "unblind" the digital cash to make it
spendable, yet absolutely untraceable. (For a much more complete
explanation of how so-called "digital cash" works, I refer you to the
August 1992 issue of Scientific American.)
Even the named "target" (the "victim") is also assured of something: He
is assured that literally anyone in the world, from his worst enemy to
his best "friend," could collect the reward, absolutely anonymously,
should they "predict" his death correctly. At that point, he will have no
friends.
This may represent the ultimate in compartmentalization of information:
Nobody knows more than he needs to, to play his part in the whole
arrangement. Nobody can turn anyone else in, or make a mistake that
identifies the other participants. Yet everyone can verify that the
"game" is played "fairly": The predictor gets his money, as the donors
desire. Potential future predictors are satisfied (in a mathematically
provable fashion) that all previous successful predictors were paid
their full rewards, in a manner that can't possibly be traced. The
members of the public are assured that, if they choose to make a
donation, it will be used as promised.
This leads me to a bold assertion: I claim that, aside from the
practical difficulty and perhaps, theoretical impossibility of
identifying either the donors or the predictor, it is very likely that
none of the participants, with the (understandable) hypothetical
exception of a "predictor" who happens to know that he is also a
murderer, could actually be considered "guilty" of any violation of
black-letter law. Furthermore, none of the participants, including the
central organization, is aware, either before or after the "prediction"
comes true, that any other participant was actually in violation of any
law, or for that matter would even know (except by watching the news)
that any crime had actually been committed.
After all, the donors are merely offering gifts to a person who makes a
successful prediction, not for any presumed responsibility in a killing,
and the payment would occur even if no crime occurred. The organization
is merely coordinating it all, but again isolating itself so that it
cannot know from whom the money comes, or to whom the money eventually
is given, or whether a crime was even committed. (Hypothetically, the
"predictor" could actually be the "victim," who decides to kill himself
and "predict" this, giving the proceeds of the reward to his chosen
beneficiary, perhaps a relative or friend. Ironically, this might be
the best revenge he can muster, "cheating the hangman," as it were.)
In fact, the organization could further shield itself by adopting a
stated policy that no convicted (or, for that matter, even SUSPECTED)
killers could receive the payment of a reward. However, since the
recipient of the reward is by definition unidentified and untraceable
even in theory, this would be a rather hollow assurance since it has no
way to prevent such a payment from being made to someone responsible.
[end of part 3]
br...@ssl.msfc.nasa.gov
>A few months ago, I had a truly and quite literally "revolutionary"
>idea, and I jokingly called it "Assassination Politics": I speculated on
>the question of whether an organization could be set up to _legally_
>announce that it would be awarding a cash prize to somebody who
>correctly "predicted" the death of one of a list of violators of
>rights, usually either government employees, officeholders, or
>appointees. It could ask for anonymous contributions from the public,
>and individuals would be able send those contributions using digital
>cash.
It's conceivable, but I don't think it's likely, because I don't expect
digital cash ever to work in the way you assume. Digital cash may be
technically feasible, but it is also technically feasible for government,
which thoroughly controls the issuance of money, to prevent it.
On the other hand, I don't think government can or will control information
technology, and I agree that anonymous or pseudonymous associations like
the one you've described will develop. In fact, they've already developed
on a massive scale. People will barter in information, but I don't think
a full-fledged, underground, e-cash economy will happen. People may also
barter in anonymous criminal acts, you take my vengeance for me, and I'll
take your vengeance for you, as in _Strangers on a Train_ (the Hitchcock
film), but I doubt it will happen on a large scale, unless there is a genuine,
popular revolution for some reason. I'd hate to think that any government
will ever become so powerful that revolution becomes an impossibility, so
the new technologies don't frighten me at all. I welcome them.
I am a federal employee, so I question any theory which makes all government
employees culpable for any unjust act of government. Carefully focused
assassination of a powerful tyrant is the most just act of war I can imagine,
but random killing is terrorism, neither just nor very effective.
Martin (marb...@ro.com)
jimbell
br...@ssl.msfc.nasa.gov wrote:
>It's conceivable, but I don't think it's likely, because I don't expect
>digital cash ever to work in the way you assume. Digital cash may be
>technically feasible, but it is also technically feasible for government,
>which thoroughly controls the issuance of money, to prevent it.
Bu you've hit upon a critical issue: Is the only reason this system might not
work is if the government forbid it? Remember, I've made a number of claims
about how this system would improve society for _individuals_, things like
eliminating war and militaries, governments and taxes. (I don't expect you to
already agree that these benefits are sure to accrue, but you should agree that
there is at least something to my claims.) The question is, does the government
think that it should be entitled to deny to the citizens the right to a solution
that will produce a net benefit to the citizens? Does the prospect of
largescale unemployment among current government employees mean that they are
entitled to maintain their current position?
It all boils down to, who is the servant and who is the master? If you believe
that we are all the servants of government, then you will conclude that the few
who control government are entitled to maintain their hegemony over the rest of
us. Most of us believe, to the contrary, that the public _ought_to_be_ the
master!! And if so, what if the public decides that it is fed up with
government and its inability to control its appetite for tax dollars? If
legislators won't do the job they are elected to do, what's wrong with the
public fixing the situation themselves?
>On the other hand, I don't think government can or will control information
>technology, and I agree that anonymous or pseudonymous associations like
>the one you've described will develop. In fact, they've already developed
>on a massive scale. People will barter in information, but I don't think
>a full-fledged, underground, e-cash economy will happen.
If it does not, the ONLY reason it won't is because of government. Keep in mind
that e-cash can flow over borders easily, and even if it doesn't immediately
happen _here_, if it happens anywhere it'll quickly spread, just like AP.
>People may also
>barter in anonymous criminal acts, you take my vengeance for me, and I'll
>take your vengeance for you, as in _Strangers on a Train_ (the Hitchcock
>film), but I doubt it will happen on a large scale, unless there is a genuine,
>popular revolution for some reason.
Hey, it _will_be_ the revolution! Remember, what I'm asserting is that we
really don't need the government for most things it currently does, but the
people who make up that government maintain it as their fiefdom of power,
collecting taxes and spending, etc.
(I don't deny that there are certain functions, currently done by government,
which will still need doing, but I claim that they will continue to be done by
privatized organizations after the government is eliminated. )
> I'd hate to think that any government
>will ever become so powerful that revolution becomes an impossibility, so
>the new technologies don't frighten me at all. I welcome them.
Well, that's a forward-thinking viewpoint. I think your best tactic is to study
my idea carefully, to determine if and how it will produce the advantages I
claim. If your conclusion is that it will do this, IF ALLOWED TO, and if the
public might conceivably want such changes, at that point maybe you ought to
remind those in power that their futures are at stake, and giving up power
gracefully and voluntarily is usually "cleaner" than the alternative. (remember
Ceaucescu of Romania?) What I anticipate is a re-organization somewhat akin to
that after the collapse of the former Soviet Union.
>I am a federal employee, so I question any theory which makes all government
>employees culpable for any unjust act of government. Carefully focused
>assassination of a powerful tyrant is the most just act of war I can imagine,
>but random killing is terrorism, neither just nor very effective.
>Martin (marb...@ro.com)
Don't worry, the killing would be far from random. FWIW, I think the main
threat to most current employees (especially those in "unthreatening"
organizations like NASA) would be the loss of a paycheck and possibly a pension.
Remember, while _you_ might not be an enemy to anyone, the people who collect
your paycheck _are._
You may wonder if the US really needs AP, but remember that I am proposing it
for the entire world, and I claim that it can't help but spread if it operates
anywhere. The world _NEEDS_ AP. If you doubt it, just look at Iraq, China,
Colombia, Rwanda, etc.
Logik Bomb
> I am a federal employee, so I question any theory which makes all government
> employees culpable for any unjust act of government. Carefully focused
> assassination of a powerful tyrant is the most just act of war I can imagine,
> but random killing is terrorism, neither just nor very effective.
>
> Martin (marb...@ro.com)
Let us save the lives of men by killing their leaders.
致araphrased quote from Hassan i Sabbah, _The Illuminatus! Trilogy_
--
Andy Ryder
Net Assassin
"We are taught to love our neighbors. Be courteous. Be peaceful. But if someone lays a hand on you, send them to the cemetery."
-Erik Bloodaxe